
Qass £An — - 

Book 






OKKIC!IAI- UONAXION. 



ALASKAN BOUNDARY TUIBUNAL. 



THE 



COUNTER QSE OF THE UNITED STATES 



BEFORE THE 



TKIBUXAL CONVENED AT LONDON 



UNDER THE 



PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED 

STATES OF AMERICA AND GREAT BRITAIN 

CONCLUDED JANUARY lH. 1003. 






WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 

10(»3. 






FEB 13 1904 
D.ofD, 



■J 
cr 






CONTENTS OF THE COUNTER CASE. 



Page. 

Introductory !?tatement 1 

The British negotiations of 1828-1825 2 

I'ortland Canal and 54° 40' north latitude 11 

The boundary from Portland Canal to the 56th parallel of north latitude 28 

The lisih-e and its eastern boundary line 31 

The lease of the lisiere by the Hudson's Bay Company 42 

Russian occupation 53 

The proposed boundary survey of 1872-1874 55 

The boundary on the Stikine 61 

The correspondence of 1886 66 

The Dall-Dawson discussion 68 

The Reciprocity Conference of 1892 69 

The alleged British protests 71 

American occupation 76 

The boundaries proposed by (ireat Britain 82 

Statement in conclusion 90 

III 



THE COUNTER C.VSE OF THE UNITED 

STATES. 



INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT. 

The United States, pursuant to the provisions of Article II of the 
treatA' of January 24, 1903, herewith submits to the Tribunal created 
thereunder, its printed Counter Case and additional documents, cor- 
respondence and evidence, in reply to the printed Case, documents, 
correspondence and evidence presented to the Tribunal on behalf of 
Great Britain. 

The United States, considerinu' that the scope of the printed Cases 
was to set forth the positions of the respective governments as to the 
matters in controvers}' without reference to the attitude heretofore 
taken bv the other, did not in its printed Case anticipate the claim 
which it was presumed would be advanced by the British Government^ 
or adduce evidence to controvert the same. Furthermore, had such a 
course, in the opinion of the United States, been in accord with the 
intent of the treat}' of January 24, 10(>3, that oovernnient would 
have been embarrassed in pursuing it by reason of the varied and 
contlicting claims, which have i)een from time to time in recent years 
advanced by pul)lic men and writers in Canada, as to the delineation 
of the boundary line now under consideration. As a further reason 
for avoidance of such a course by the United States, the Government 
of Great Britain had never ofhciallv indicated which, if any, of the 
sevei-al lines heretofore proposed by Canadian statesmen, writers and 
cartographers would receive its official approval and support. 

Under these circumstances the United States deems that it would 
have been inappropriate on its ixirt to have followed a method of 
treatment based solely upon coiijcctur*^ as to the attitude wliich would 
l)e assumed by His Majesty's Govonment. Moreover, since the atti- 
tude of Great Britain was uncertain, the concessions which might be 
made on her part were <>(|ually so. It was, therefore, a matter of 

1 



2 corNTER casp: of the ignited states. 

speculation how ri'lcvaiit iind how niuteiiul, if ut all, would be evidenee 
establishing- British and Canadian acquiescence in. and agTecniont 
with, the interpretation placed upon the treaty of 1825 l)y the United 
States, until the British Government had distinctly defined its position 
in the Case, which it has submitted to this Tribunal. 

The United States, therefore, in this Counter Case presents to the 
Tribunal the evidence of such accjuiescence by British authorities 
and subjects in the boundary line set forth in the Case of the United 
States, together with such other evidence as substantiates the reply of 
the Ignited States to the claim of (ireat Britain or such as is in rebuttal 
of the evidence adduced in the British Case. 

THE BRITISH NEGOTIATIONS OF 1823-1825. 

The United States has no further evidence to present as to the course 
of the negotiations which took place between Great Britain and Russia 
during- the years 1828, 1824 and 1825; but since there have been sub- 
mitted to the Tril)unal in the British Case certain documents bearing 
upon this subject it becomes necessary to consider them in connection 
with the statement already made in the Case of the United States. It 
is, however, contended that this additional evidence in no way alters 
any material allegation made in the Case, but on the contrary contirms 
and strengthens the position therein set forth. 

The first document submitted by Great Britain and not included in 
the Appendix to the case of the United States is a memorandum 
enclosed in the letter of Mr. J. H. l\dly, the deputy governor of the 
Hudson's Bay Company, to Mr. Canning, dated September 25, 1822." 
It contains conimcnts upon the grounds ad\anced l)y ]M. de Poletica 
in his correspondence with Secretary of State Adams. ^ in support of 
Russia's claim to the Northwest Coast as far south as 51" north lati- 
tude. The memoi-andum, while it forms ])art of the correspondence, 
does not bear ui)on an}' question at issue before this Tril>unal. other 
than to show that the officers of tlie Hudson's Bay Company exam- 
ined the narratives of Cook, Vancouver, Meares, and Portlock for 
the purpose of traversing the ai'gument of iSI. de Poletica, which it 
was natural to suppose would be reiterated in the approaching nego- 
tiations between (irc^at Britain and Hussia. 

The second document demanding attention is a letter of July 25, 

" Britisli Case, App., p. L'o. ''U. S. Case, App., pp. 32-38. 



THE HKITISH NEGOTIATIONS OF 182:{-182.j. 3 

1823, from Mr. C'anninu- to Sir Charles Bao-ot" modifying n minor 
point in tho instructions given the latter on July 12, 1823/ It in no 
way att'ects any statement made in the Case of the United States. 

The third document is the text of the full power of the United States 
minister at St, Petersburg/ It establishes no new fact, only em- 
phasizing the object sought l)y the United States in its negotiations 
with Russia, as set forth in the Case. 

The fourth document is an unsigned memorandum dated January 
13, 182-1, and addressed to Mr. Canning.'' In this memorandum there 
appears to have been enclosed "a Russian Chart (copied from Van- 
couver's survey)" for the purpose of proving that Sitka was located 
upon an island. From the suggestion as to a boundary line through 
Chatham Strait and L3'nn Canal being similar to the one proposed by 
Mr. Pelly, fhinuary 8, 1821,'' it would ap]iear that this memorandum, 
like others utilized by the British Govei-nment, originated Avith the 
Hudson's Bay Compan}^ the real party in interest. The chart men- 
tioned is not produced, but it establishes the important fact, that there 
were Russian copies of Vancouver's charts, which, it may be presumed 
were consulted by the Russian representatives during the negotiations, 
and from which by retranslation were derived the names used in the 
correspondence and treaty drafts. 

The fifth document is also a memorandum from the Hudson's Bay 
Company, dated January 16, 1821.-^" It appears in the British Case as 
an enclosure to Sir Charles Bagot's instructions, though the latter are 
datt^d January 15, 1824.^/ one day previous to the date of the memo- 
randum. It is to be presumed, however, that if the document was 
not enclosed in that letter, it was forwarded in the letter of January 
20, 1824,^' from Mr. Canning to the British minister at St. Peters- 
burg, which "enclosed certain information and suggestions" respect- 
ing the negotiation, which Mr. Canning stated he had I'oceived since 
his "-despatch on that subject was prepared". 

In this memorandum the writer. Mr. Pelly. said that, "as in the 
conversation he had with ^Iv. Canning. h(>|Mr. Canning] seemed to 
consider Mr. Faden's map as the most antliciitic (an opinion which in so 
important a (|uestion as that of settling a national boundaiy. it may, 
perhaps, be dangerous hastily to admit) Mr. Pelly has had the posts 

"British Case, App., p. 48. 'Ibid., p. (>4. 

'j U. S. Case, App., p. 128. ./'Ibid , p. (i."?. 

'■British Case, App., p. 48. f/H)id., p. 59. 

'/ Ibid., p. r,9. /' Ibid.. )). 65. 



4 COUNTER CASP: of the INITED STATES. 

of the Huclsoirs Bay Conipaiiv, in that pait of the territory under 
consideration, marked on it: lie has likewise had coloured the proposed 
line from Lynn Canal, the northern extremity of Chatham Strait, as 
well as the less objectionable one from Mount Elias."' 

The map, which was thus endorsed l)y ]\Ir. Canninu- and wliich he, 
on account of his opinion as to its authenticity, doubtless forwarded 
to Sir Charles Bagot, would appear to have been the one published by 
James Wyld, the successor of W. Faden, London, June 1, 1823.'^' The 
other so-called Faden map'' Mas not published until June 1, 1824, at 
which time the boundary line had been substantially agreed upon up 
to 5t)' north latitude. Tlie tirst of these maps, therefore, was 
undoul^tedly consulted both at London and at St. Petersburg as to the 
entire boundary, while the second could onW have been used in 
determining the line northward from the 56th parallel. These two 
maps will l)e considered more in detail in the discussion of the line of 
demarcation drawn by the treaty. 

The sixth document is the letter of Mr. Canning to Sir Charles 
Bagot of January 20, 1S24.'" to which reference has just been made. 
The enclosures, which are not produced, appear to have been addi- 
tional memoranda, containing information and suggestions, which, 
because of the extravagance of the views expressed, Mr. Canning was 
unwilling to endorse, as he was also unwilling to modify, in accord- 
ance therewith, his instructions of January 15, 1824. The nature of 
these suggestions can only be conjectured from the colors placed 
upon the Faden map, which made Cross Sound and Lynn Canal the 
southeastern boundary of the Russian possessions. 

The seventh document is a letter from the Hudson's Bay Companv 
to Mr. Canning under date of April U), 1824.'' Mr. Felly had 
received from Mr. Canning a few days previously the despatch and 
papers sent to the Foreign Office on March 20.' These he laid 
before the Committee of the Hudson's Bay Company, and he stated 
to ]Mr. Canning in this letter, that, if the British Government consid- 
ered it advisal)le to accede to the last proposition made by llussia, 
his committee could see no reason to ol)ject to it. He suggested, 
hoAve\er, that, on account of the lack of accurate geographical informa- 
tion, there should be inserted in the article of the treaty, "providing 

"British Case, Atlas, No. 10. ('Ibid., p. 78. 

'>Ibid., No. 11. 'Ibid., p. 66. 

'British Case, App., p. 65. 



THE EKITISH XEGoTIATIONS (>F 1S2.3-1S2:.. 5 

for the homularv on the maiiilaiul the noarcst ehiiiii of iiiountuins. not 
exccMMlinii" a few l('a<iU(\'^ of the coast." 

The eighth docunuMit is another letter from the Hudson's Bay Com- 
pany to the Foreion Othce. dated May 20, 1824/' To Mr. Pelly had 
1)0011 suhinittod for eoniment. on May 25, the copy of a communica- 
tion, })r('suiiKil)ly. from the context, the one sent on May 29, 1S24, l)y 
Mr. C'anninu' to the Russian minister at London.'' This letter, con- 
taiuino- liis views, states that the proposed communication '"embraced 
all the points which appear necessary to secure the ol)jects of the Hud- 
son's Ba\' Compau}', with the exception of a more particular descrip- 
tion of how the mountains range with the sinuosity of the coast, as it 
is possible that those mountains represented in the charts as closely 
bordering on the sea, and described by the Russians as a 'tres-petite 
distance.' may really be at a very considerable distance from the coast; 
and to provide for which case the distance ought to l)e limited, as Sir 
Charles Bagot proposed, to a few leagues, say, not exceeding 10 from 
the shores." 

The remainder of the letter contains a discussion of the question in 
the light of the treat}^ of April 5 17, 1824, between the United States 
and Russia. Since Russia had agreed not to establish any settlements 
below 54' 40', ]\lr. Pelly stated that she had nothing to concede to 
Great Britain, and for that reason he was at loss to understand ''why 
Great Britain should cede to Russia the exclusive right to the islands 
and the coast from hit. 54' 4<>' northwai'd to Blount Elias." 

The ninth document is a letter of Lord F. Conyngham to Mr. Felly, 
dated October l'.>, 1824,'' transmitting copies of paptu's received by the 
Foreign Othce from Count Lieven, the Russian minister at London, with 
a request for Mr. Felly's observations upon them. The papers enclosed 
were undoubtedly Count Nesselrode's inqjortant despatch of August 
31, 1824,'' to Count Lieven, which the latter was authorized to com- 
municate to Mr. Canning.'' together with the enclosures which it 
contained. •' 

The tenth document is Mr. Felly's reply to the letter of Lord 
Conyngham. dated October 20, 1824,^' containing his conniients upon 
the Russian papers. In it he stated that the counter draft of Russsia^' 

" Britis^h Case, App., p. 80. f Ibid., p. 204. 

''U. S. Case, App., p. ISO. /British Ca,«e, Apj)., pp. 100, 107, 108. 

t- British Case, App., p. 110. '.i Iliid, p. 110. 

'T. S. Case, App., p. 200. /'ll»i<l., p. It4. 



6 CorNTER CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

(wliieli N\;is enclosed to him) did not apjiear to him to l)e so essentially 
different from the British draft as to warrant its rejection, "except in 
in the i^nd Article, which should more accurately dt'tine the eastern 
boundary from the Portland Canal to the Olst deg-ree of north latitude 
to be the chain of mountains at a ' tres-petite distance de la cote' but 
that if the summit of those mountains exceed 10 leagues, that the said 
distance ))e sul)stituted instead of the mountains''. 

Of the ten other documents relating to the negotiations, which are 
produced on behalf of Great Britain and do not appear in the Appen- 
dix to the Case of the United States/' but one is important in a review 
of the correspondence. The one referred to is the treaty draft enclosed 
in Mr. Stratford Canning's instructions of December S, 1S24,'' which 
formed the basis of the draft which he subsequently submitted to the 
llussian plenipotentiaries. The language of Article III of Mr. George 
Canning's draft becomes of material value in determining the intent 
of Great Britain in the negotiations and in ascertaining the meaning 
of certain words and expressions which appear in the treaty tinally 
signed. 

It is a significant fact that of the eleven documents mentioned in 
detail seven are comnuniications l)ctween the Hudson's Bay Compan^v 
and the Foreign Office. These not only fully sustain the assertions 
made in the Case of the United States that in ffxing a line of demarca 
tion the British Government acted solely in the interests of the Hud- 
son's Bay Company/ but they establish other facts, which the United 
States was unabl(> to state with certainty until the production of the 
documents, — that is, that every proposal advanced l)y a British nego- 
tiator upon the subject of the boundary originated at the Hudson's 
Bay House in London: that the historical and geographical facts 
employe<l by the British Government wen^ obtained from the ukmuo- 
randa from time to time furnished the Foreign Office by Mr. Pidly, 
the deputy governor of the company: that all the important corre- 
spondence was delivered to the directing connnittce of the company, 
and its opinion solicited by the Foreign Office; and that th(» Hudson's 
Bay Company a(h'ised and in a measure controlled the British (iov- 
ernment in eacii step of the negotiation relating to the boundary. 

^British Case, App. (o/u') p. 110; (/Am) p. Ill; [<»><•) p. 115: {thvcc), p. 117; {cme) 
p. 118; and {one') p. 133. 
'']))i.l., ]). 115. 
f U. S. Cas^e, pp. 64-6(3. 



THE BRITISH NKGOTIATIONS OF 1S23-1S25. 7 

As shown in llu' (use of the Uniti'd Stutes, the territorial (lue^lioii 
was. so far as tlie British Government was concerned, subsidiary to 
that of niaritiuic jurisdiction." and this newly produced cNidcnce 
])rovos the assertion that '"it was not the British Government, hut 
the Hudson's Bay Company which had given it such prominence"'' in 
the neootiations. The importance of this fact, now conclusively 
established, is that the Foreign Otfice and the British minister at 8t. 
Petersburg" relied for their information, outside of the maps which 
they examined, upon the data furnished them by the Hudson's Bay 
Company. The reference of despatches and papers to Mr. Felly and 
his committee by Mr. Canning, before being acted upon by the 
British Government, shows that it was dependent upon that company 
for the facts relative to the region in dispute. 

The Faden map of 1823 was furnished to the Foreign Office b\- Mr. 
Felly at the time the letter of instructions of January 15, 1824, was 
prepared and sent to Sir Charles Bagot.' It eml)odied geographical 
information in accord W'ith the memoranda of the Hudson's Bay Com- 
pany enclosed to the British minister, and also showed the boundary 
desired l)y the Company. It undouljtedly played an important part 
in the negotiations of February and ]\Iarch, 1S24, as well as in the 
subsequent conferences which took place and in the preparation of 
draft conventions at London and at St. Petersburg. 

There can be no doubt that this map was before the negotiators. 
In the memorandum of the Russian plenipotentiaries upon the amended 
proposal of Sir Charles Bagot appears the following statement: 
'•According to the most recent and best maps published in England 
the establishments of the Hudson Bay Company approach the coast 
only along the hfty-third and lifty-fourth degrees, and it can not be 
l)rov('d that they reach the Great Ocean at any i)()int"."' No other 
map. pul)lished at that time, shows the posts of the Hudson's Bay 
C()mi)any west of the Kocky Mountains, which had been placed on the 
Faden map under the direction of ]\Ir. Felly.' This assertion of the 
Russian representatives could, therefore, have been made only after an 
examination of this map. 

Besides the Faden map there w^ere before the negotiators the map of 

"U. S. Case., pp. oiMiO. 'T. S. Case, Ajip., p. KU. 

''Ibid., p. ()0. ' British Case, A]>p. p. »i.i. 

f British Case, App., \k (io. 



8 COUNTER CAST-: oK THE UNITED STAl ES. 

180'2. j)ul)lisli(Hl hy tlu' Kiissiuii ((U:irt('niiast('i--_oeiu'nirs tlo}):irtni('iit/' 
pr()l>;il)ly \';inc()uvcr's charts (either ti Kus^ian. Kiio-jisli. or French 
edition),'' one or more maps by Arrowsinith. and ])()ssil)ly the Langs- 
dorff map of 1803-1805.'^ Other than these publications there is no 
evidence that an}' were consulted or examined during- the negotiations. 
Nevertheless the following- statement is made in the British Case: 

The answer [to what was Vancouver's Portland Canal] must depend on tlie evi- 
dence to be found in Vancouver's book and charts, knon-n to hare been before tlte 
negotiators, and the sole, or, at any rate, the main and best sources of information on 
this lieacb <" 

Xo citation is given to substantiate the assertion that Vancouver's 
Ijook was '"'"JiJirnm to have been before the negotiators" or that it and 
the charts were probal)ly the '' so/c^' sources of information as to Port- 
land Canal. The fact and the presumption as well are unsupported 
by any evidence as yet produced ))y either the United States or Great 
Britain. An assertion of such importance in the present controNcrs}- 
demands atlirmative and conclusive proof. Upon the establishment 
of the fact that Vancouver's narrative was read and relied upon l)y the 
Russian negotiators rests the entire materiality of the extracts from 
that work which appear in the Appendix to the British Case.-^ 

The United States denies that evidence of any nature whatsoever, 
from which this assertion can be deduced, has been presented to the 
Tribunal. On the contrary there is proof that Sir Charles Bagot. the 
British minister at St. Petersburg, was not familiar with the \'an- 
couver narrative. 

The expedition under the command of Captain (ieorge Vancouver 
was sent out to accpiire accurate information as to the existence of 
" any water-connnunication" between the Northwest Coast and the 
British territory on the opposite side of the continent ''by means of 
any considerable inlets of the sea, or even of large rivers. "'i' He was 
instructed especially to survey "the direction and extent of all such 
considerabh^ inlets, whether made bvarms f)f the sea or by the mouths 
of large rivers." And he was informed that "• the discovery of a near 
conununication between any such inlet or strait and any river ruiuiing 
into, or from the lake of the woods, would l)e particidarly useful.'"''' 



«U. S. Case, App., p. 127; British - British Case, p. 50. 

Case, Atlas, No. 5. .'pp. i:;9-14i>. 

^V. y. Case, Atlas, Xos. 4 and 5. ;/ U. S. Counter Case App., \\ 2."V1. 

clbid., Xos. 8 and 10. -'' Ibid., p. 251. 
'^British Case, Atlas, Xo. 7. 



THE KKITISII NEGOTIATIONS oF iNl'M-l^lio. 9 

^^'itll lidclity and persoveraiicc \"anc()uv('r accoiiiijlisliod tlie task set 
ht't'orc him: and in tlu» dedication of !iis ])ul)lisl)('(l nai'rati\-e it is 
announced that, within the liniits of Ids researches, there was no 
•'naviyahh' coinnmnication " Avith the Athmtic seaboard." 

There had' existed for many years j^rior to his voyaoe the tale of a 
great ii\-er of Northwestern America u)) which De Fonta was said to 
have saihnl »>(> h>atriies after ])assing for 2H(i lea_i>ut>s throuo-h the tortu- 
ous channels of a vast archipehigo. This river, known as ""Kio de los 
Kevins." was phiced by English geographers in latitude 53^ north. 
For it \'ancouver sought. At the close of his narrative he commented 
u])on this traditional river. He stated that the archipelago did exist 
l)etween 47"^ and 57^ of north latitude, '"vet the evidence of a navigable 
river flowing- into it, is still wanting to prove its identity: and * * 
the scrupulous exactness with which our survey of the continental 
shores has ])een made within these limits precludes the possibility of 
such a v'nQv having been passed unnoticed by us, as that described to 
be Kio de los Reyes."*'' 

Turning now to the amended proposal of 8ir Charles Bagot it is 
found that lie opposed the granting of the continental shore below 
the r.tlth ])arallel to Russia, because it would deprive Great Britain of 
the bays and inlets between that parallel and 54- 45' "' whereof several 
(r/st t/irre f'-s (venj rrai<im to helieve) conmiunicate directly with the 
establishments of the Hudson's Ba}' Company and are, consequently, 
of essential importtuice to its commerce."^' 

Again, in his rei)ly to the observations of the Russian plenipoten- 
tiaries. Sir Charles Bagot said: ''The head of Portland Channel may 
l)e <(s thevt h iwn^on to t>etleve. the mouth of some ri\er flowing 
through the midst of the country occui)ied by the Hudson Bay Com- 
pany, and it is, consequently, of great importance to (xrinit Britain to 
possess the sovereignty of the two shores thereof."'' 

Both of these statements show an ignorance of A'ancouver's nar- 
rative, of the purpose of the expedition, and of the careful execution 
of its ()bj(Ht. Hut as further jiroof that tiie Hritisji negotiator was 
unfamiliar with the text of Vancou\er, when he made the above 
statement in regard to Portland Canal, attention is called to the fact 
that the explorer in his description of his reconnaissance of that inlet 

«U. S. Counter Case. A pp.. p. 2ri0. cU. S. Case, App., p. 159. 

'' ll)i.l., ].. 2."iL'. '' ll.id., p. ](«. 



10 COUNTER CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

speciticully stated that *'//" iranfiniixl t<> trnit/jnifi- in hnr nKirxInj Jand^ 
ill latitude 55- 45', longitude 230^ (i'/'" 

Furthermore, it should he noted that throughout the correspondence 
between the neo-otiators and in the trcnity th(^ astronomical locations 
are given in longitude w.st" of (irreeinvich, while in the narrati\e of 
\'ancou\'er the longitude given is cast. On all tlie English maps 
referred to in the negotiations the longitude appears as vast of 
Greenwich, 

In addition to this evidence that the Vancouver narrative was not a 
source of information to the plenipotentiaries of Great Britain and 
Russia, much less one of "the main and best sources," the following 
pertinent questions may be asked: \A^ould not the negotiators, if 
drawing the southern boundar}' with Vancouver's technical descrip- 
tion before them, have stated accurately the astronomical locations? 
Would they not have traced the line from the place of beginning to 
the head of Portland Canal by landmarks, especially as the field notes 
of Vancouver did not a])pear to correspond with any one of the maps 
before them? Would not some reference to the Vancouver text have 
been made during the negotiations? 

In the light of the evidence produced and in view of the silence of 
the correspondence upon the subject, the United States asserts that 
the text of Vancouver's narrative becomes irrelevant and immaterial 
in interpreting Articles III and IV of the treaty of 1825; and that, 
unless it can be shown that the representatives of Ixttli powers had the 
narrative as a guide in fixing names and places, allegations and argu- 
ments which rest upon Vancouver's text are valueless in deterniiniiig 
the intention of the negotiators or the meaning of the treaty. 

The chief omissions of Great Britain in the Case presented to tlie 
Trihunal arc the documents (the majority of which had been made 
public) which relate to the treaty of April 5 17, 1824, between the 
United States and Russia. The negotiations which resulted in this 
treaty were conducted by the same Russian plenipotentiaries who con- 
ferred with Sir Charles Bagot and w(M'(» carried on at the same time 
as the negotiations with (Jreat Britain, namely during February and 
March, 1824. While the American negotiation dii-ectly afiected the 
trading privileges secured for a term of ten years by Great Britain, it 
is principally important in detennining what the Russian negotiators, 

"British Case, App., p. 143. 



PORTLAND CANAL AND rA° 4U' NORTH LATITUDE. 11 

in their correspondent^ with Sir ( "hiirles Bu^^ot, intended us the south- 
ern line of demarcation on the continent. A consideration of this 
factor in the negotiations between Great Britain and Russia will he 
more appro}3riate when that portion of the boundary is discussed. 

As to the point of commencement of the line of demarcation, the 
I'nited States understands that (xreat Britain concedes that it was the 
intention of the negotiators and it is the meaning of the treaty of 1825 
that such point was Cape Muzon." It, therefore, deems further dis- 
cussion of that subject unnecessary. Nevertheless, to the reasoning- 
liy which (rreat Britain reached this conclusion in the Case sul)mitted, 
and to the deduced intei'pretation of certain clauses of Article III 
which appear in the discussion, the United States cannot assent. 

The southern ])oundary was intended b\' the negotiators to be the 
parallel 5-1- -i(>', and the clause of Article IV, which states that "the 
island called Priiicr of W(ile>i Island shall belong wholly to Russia,"* 
was inserted for two oljvious reasons — that in case an}- portion of the 
island la}' below the boundary parallel named it should still form part 
of the Russian possession, and further that in the event of the eastern 
point l)eing the most southern, then, even if both headlands extended 
below 54- -10', the one lying to th(> westward should nevertheless be 
Russian territory. 

PORTLAND CANAL AND 54° 40' NORTH LATITUDE. 

The subject of this southern l)oundarv is directly connected with 
the location of Portland Canal, for if the parallel governs then the 
line of demarcation enters the passage sometimes called Portland 
Inlet. Conversely, if the boundary was intended to pass through 
that inlet then it would seem to ))e conclusive that the negotiators 
intended to draw the line along the parallel 54 4i»'. 

In a consideration of the identification of that portion of Portland 
Canal lying south and southwest of the eastern end of the chamiel 
now known as Pearse Canal, the United States does not deem that 
it is material to make "in(|uiry as to what was Vancoiir, r's Portland 
Canal".'' The United States makes no contention as to " llnicomur's 
Portland CanaP' or to the (question '•^^'hat was ]'(f/ico>/>'c/-\s Observa- 
tory Inlet T''' On the contrary it deems the consideration of these 

"British Case, p. 4(i. 'British Case, p. 50. 

&U. S. Case, App., p. 15. •' \\>u\ , i)p. 50, 51. 



12 CorXTER CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

(luostioiis without i)r()tit in tlu^ present controversy. It conceives 
t!iat t\\o real (juestion at issue is. AVluit was the /irr/(jt/af <>/■■■<' rorthuul 
Canal ( 

In answerinu' this cjuestion it Ijeconies iniporttmt to deterniini^ what 
geographical material was before Count Nesselrode. M. de Poletica. 
and Sir Charles Bagot when the negotiations took place, and what 
was shown therein as to the location of Portland Canal. In addition 
to this, the expressions used in negotiation or hy the goveriunents 
prior or subsequent to the treaty of 1825. and the understanding by 
geographers, publicists and officials of either Great Britain or Russia, 
as to the southern boundary established by the treaty, ai'e niati'rial in 
locating the Portland Canal of the negotiators. 

It should be borne in mind that all negotiations eoncerning that 
portion of the line of demarcation from the point of commence- 
ment to oti-^ north latitude ceased with the suspension of negotia- 
tions at St. Petersl)urg hy Sir Charles Bagot. March 17 2!t. 1S2-1-," 
on which day the Russian plenipotentiaries delivered to him their 
tinal decision.^' From that time forward Great Britain ottered no 
objection to the boundary proposed by Russia, except to that portion 
north of tlu^ ."MUh })arallel as far as mount St. Elias.'' 

The first mention of Portland Canal was in the counter draft of 
Russia deli\ ered to the British minister February 24. 1824."' Thus 
the negotiations on that subject occu})ied about six Aveeks. On 
the part of Great I^ritain Sir Charles Bagot was the oidy one who 
discussed I'ortland Canal with the Russians. He does not ap])ear to 
have conmiunicated with his government during this period; and not 
having done so he received no specific information in regard to that 
arm of the sea from the Foreign Office. 

The negotiations conducted by Mr. Middleton. the American minister 
at St. Petersburg, conmienced on February !• iM and continued until 
April 5 17, 1824.' On February 2(» March 4 Count Nesselrode proposed 
54^^40' as the soutliern line of the Russian possessions on the Northwest 
Coast, fixing on that pai-allel. as he said, so that the lower portion of 
Prince of "\\'al(>> Island would belong to Russia.' On the 7th Mr. Mid- 
dleton accepted the proposal.-'' A week before this the Russian plenipo- 

«U. S. Case App.. p. 153. ' Ibid., pp. 71, 69. 

&Ibid., p. IfU. .'Ibid., p. 83. 

("Ibid., p. IS I. !/ Ihi.l., ]). S4. 

'Hind., p. 15 S. 



PORTLAND CANAL AND rA° 40' MORTH LATITUDE. 13 

tentitiries hud proposed to Sir Churlo.s Btigot to draw the tjouiuUuy 
so Jis to make the southern extremity of Prince of Wales Island Rus- 
sian torritor}'/' From tiiis significant circumstance, from the fact 
that the subject of each negotiation was the same, namely, the >sorth- 
west Coast, from the fact that Russia recogMiized that the United States 
had as valid claims to the coast south of the Russian possessions as 
Great Britaui had,* and from the statement of Count Nesselrode that 
in his negotiations with the British minister he "proposed to carry the 
southern frontier of our domains to latitude 54^ -iO'"^, it is manifest 
that it was the intention of the Russian plenij^otentiaries to make the 
line of their southern boundar\- in the negotiation with Great Britain 
coincident with that agreed upon with the United States. 

The geographical data which, according to the evidence, were 
before the negotiators, were the maps alreadj- mentioned. It is true 
that Sir Charles had been furnished by the Foreign Office with memo- 
randa prepared by Mr. Pelly, the deputy governor of the Hudson's 
Bay Company;^ but when the memoranda were prepared Portland 
Canal had not become a factor in the negotiations, and, when the 
Hudson's Bay Company was again consulted b}' the British Govern- 
ment, it had ceased to be a subject of controversy. There is. there- 
fore, in none of Mr. Pelly's correspondence any discussion of that 
channel. 

The Russian map pul)lished in lSi)'2 by the quartermaster-generars 
department shows a broad inlet, in which are several islands and from 
which two branches penetrate inland.'^ Neither the inlet nor the 
branches are named, and it was not, therefore, from this map that the 
description of the line from Prince of Wales Island to the head of 
Portland Canal was derived, although it is probable that it was used 
to test the accuracy of others. 

Incidentalh^ the purpose of Great Britian in reproducing a section 
of this map with a colored outline,' is not understood, the color show- 
ing merely native tribal divisions, as is demonstrated l)v an exam- 
ination of the large map, on which the dotted line running inland 
from Behm Canal, and which in the section reproduced is colored, is 
the supposed southern limit of the Kolosh tribes on the coast. 

The Langsdorff map,-^ if it were ever at St. Petersburg, could hardly 

" U. 8. Case, App., p. 158. '^British Case, Atlap, Xo. 5. 

''Ibid., p. 174. ''Ibul., No. (i. 

clbid., p. 173. /Ibid., Xo. 7. 

2G626 2 



14 COUNTER CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

have been consulted l>v the negotiators. t)ecause it was so rudely 
drawn. 

What Arrowsniith maps were examined during- the negotiations it 
is ditheult to determine. Four have been otiered in evidence; two on 
behalf of the United States, one of 1818/' the other of 1822 with addi- 
tions to 1833;* and two on behalf of Great liritain. one listed as "up 
to 1822,"' but showing on its face that it was corrected to 1821;' the 
other, ''up to 1824,""' Of these maps, the one of 1818 is on a small 
scale, l)ut shows substantially the same details as the larger maps. 
In all these it is noticealjle that the channel westward of Pearse Island 
is almost closed and the main course of Portland Canal runs between 
Point Ramsden and Pearse Island. The name "Portland Canal'* 
extends along- the shore of the channel "'Ijeyond the head of Pearse 
Island," as stated in the British Case. ' 

One of two views must have been taken by the negotiators after 
examining the region al»out 04 - 40' as shown on the maps. Either 
that the whole estuary bounded by the mainland on either side and 
comprising both Portland Inlet and Pearse Canal, was to be consid- 
ered as Portland Canal,'^ in which lay Pearse, Wales, and other islands; 
or that the estuary as far inland as Point Ramsden was an unnamed 
arm of the sea, from which diverged two liranches, Portland Canal 
and Observatory Inlet. 

The Arrowsniith maps, relied upon at St. Petersburg, would have 
conveyed the idea that the entire estuar}^ was named '"Portland 
Canal". No method of reasoning would have applied the name 
"Observatory Inlet", wdiich extends at right angles to that branch 
from a point far above Ramsden Point, to any portion of the waters 
))elow that headland. 

On the other hand the Vancouver chart of this region'' appears to 
name each l)rancli without giving a name to the main inlet below their 
junction. But in any event an examination of this latter chart would 
never sugg'est that the name ""Observatory Inlet", which appears in 
small lettei-s on the western side of that channel and above Point 

« U. S. Case, Atlas, No. 8. 

&Ibid., No. 10. 

(• British Case, Atlas, No. 8. 

</ Ibid., No. 12. 

«p. 55. 

/ For a large map of this region Kee U. S. Counter Case, Atlas, No. 30. 

g U. S. Case, Atlas, No. 4. 



PORTLAND ("ANAL AND rA° 40' NORTH LATITUDP:. 15 

Kainsck'ii. \v;is intciulcd to be a[)pli('(l to the body of water Itelow the 
point. Nor would surh an examination indicate that the name "Port- 
land Canal". [)laoe(l to the west of the chaniiid. whieh is clearly deline- 
ated as passing" Point Kamsden. ^vas applicable to the passage liehind 
Pearse and Wales Islantls. 

The Faden map" which has already been referred to, conveys the 
idea which is suggested by the Arrowsmith maps. There is no distinct 
channel shown al)ove Wales Island. The name "Portland Canal" 
begins on the western shore opposite Pearse Island. The words 
'"Observatory Inlet" are yjlaced at right angles to that branch about 
half way between its head and the Xaas Kiver. Another feature con- 
tirmatory of this view is that the character and size of the lettering 
of the two names indicate that Portland Canal was the main inlet and 
Observatory Inlet l)ut a branch. 

The United States, relying upon the maps I'lioirn to have been 
])efore the negotiators, asserts that the position taken in the British 
Case is entirely untenable and does not conform to the established 
facts; and that the Portland Canal of the negotiators was either the 
whole inlet from mainland to mainland, or that branch entering 
between Pearse Island and Point Ramsden into the unnamed estuary". 
It is inunaterial which of these two conclusions is reached, for in 
either case the line of demarcation l)etween Cape Muzon and the head 
of Portland Canal would follow the course contended for b}^ the 
United States in its printed Case. 

The maps published since the treaty are. with scarcely an exception, 
corroborative of the southern boundary claimed by the United States. 
It is unnecessary here to refer to them all in detail, but an examina- 
tion of those produced will confirm this assertion. Special attention 
is directed to the Arrowsmith map of 1833, dedicated to the Hudson's 
Bay Compan}'.* the Arrowsmith map produced in 1857 before the 
select conunittee to investigate the Hudson's Bay Company and 
ordered printed by the House of Commons,'' the British Admiralty 
map of 1865,'' the map prepared by the United States Coast Survey in 
isHT for the Department of State at the instance of Senator Sumner,' 
and the two charts of the British Admiralty of 1808. which cover the 
region under discussion.' 

"British Case, Atlas, No. 10. ''U. S. Case, Atlas No. 23. 

6 U. S. Case, Atlas No. 12. f Ibid., No. 24. 

<-U. S. Counter Ca.se, Atlas No. 35. .'"British Case, Atlas Nos. 23, 25. 



1(3 COUNTER CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

The survey, the results of which are hiid down in the two charts last 
mentioned, was undoubted]}' made pursuant to specific instructions 
from tht! British Ciovernment as to the waters which it was to cover. 
It is therefore a signihcant fact that Pearse Canal and the channel 
between Wales and Pearse Islands were not survej-ed, but are repre- 
sented by dotted lines without pretense to accuracy. In the second 
of these charts the name "Portland Canal"' appears in the channel 
between Pearse Island and Point Pamsden. In connection with the 
position taken in the Admiralty charts the following- from the "Sail- 
ing Directions for Bering Sea and Alaska" published '" b^^ order of 
the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty'' in 1S98 is important as 
showing the course of the southern boundary: "The boundary line 
between British Columl)ia and Alaska runs eaxt and tvtst through 
Dixon entrance." " 

A comparison of the maps produced shows that the cartographers 
in the years immediately following the treaty of 1S2.5 and for a con- 
siderable time thereafter evidently considered Wales and Pearse islands 
as lying in Portland Canal, but that, later investigations having dis- 
closed the narrow and insigniticant character of the strait along the 
eastern shore of the continent, the two islands became recognized as 
part of the western limits of the waterway. It should be added that 
the application of geographic names, referred to in the treaty, on maps 
made subsequent to its signature, is of far more value in determin- 
ing the intention of the parties, than any designation .given by writers 
or niap-makers prior to the negotiations, unless it can l)e established 
beyond controversy that such nomenclature was not only known to the 
negotiators but was relied upon l)y them in descril)ing the l)oundary 
in the treaty. 

Attention has already been directed to the influence which the nego- 
tiations and treaty l)etween the United States and Russia had upon the 
negotiations and treaty between Great Britain and Russia, and to the 
fact that Russia intended, and the British minister understood that it 
was intended, to make the parallel 54° 40', the southern boundary. 
In this connection the following statement of Mr. Middleton. the 
United States minister, in reporting the course and result of his 
negotiations at St. Petersburg, is important: "It was urgently pressed 
l)v file Russian plenipotentiaries [because the 55th parallel cut through 
Prince of Wales IslandJ to make the line of delimitation run upon the 

« U. S. Counter Case, App. p. 261; see also Ibid., p. 205. 



PORTLAND CANAL AND .■i4° 40' NORTH LATITUDE. 17 

parallel of 54 40'. a small deviation from the instructions 1 had 
received. To this I thoug-ht I could. Avitlumt impropriety, accede. 
To show how much importance they [the Russians] attach to the par- 
allel 54^ 40' it may now be mentioned that it is only ujXfn f/u's point 
that the negotiation with Great Britain lias heen hrol'en <>if-^'" 

Count Nesselrode in his letter of August 31, 18:^4, to the Russian 
minister at London, stated that the coast which then was the subject 
of discussion extended from "'oO- of north latitude to blf- ^^'"* In 
the same letter the following expressions appear: "We have, conse- 
quenth", confined them [Russia's rights of sovereignt}'] to the 54° ^6?';"*^ 
•'it must be well understood that this concession [of hunting and trad- 
ing] will only comprise the space inclosed between latitude 59^ and 
the southern houndarij of our territory to wit, latitude olf- Jfi'-,''''' "our 
counter draft carries our houndary from the tifty-tirst degree of north 
latitude to J^-^ 4^'."^ It is to be noted that the subject under discus- 
sion is the coast, not the islands, and that the boundary referred to is 
that upon the coast, which is repeatedly stated to be 54^ 40'. 

Count Lieven was directed to read this letter to Secretary Canning 
and to furnish him with a copy,-' and the latter undoubtedly gave a 
copy to Mr. Pelly.^ 

A copy was also furnished to Mr. Stratford Canning upon depart- 
ing on his mission to St. Petersburg.^' Thus the British Secretary of 
State for Foreign Affairs, the officer of the Hudson's Bay Company 
who had been directing the boundary negotiations, and the British 
plenipotentiary who negotiated the treat}^, examined these statements, 
which so clearly set forth the intention of Russia as to the southern 
line. Yet there was no protest against and no conniient upon the 
subject by any of them. The treaty was signed and ratilied with the 
understanding upon V)oth sides that the southern boundary of the 
Russian possessions reached Portland Canal at 54^ 40'. 

During the correspondence which took place at the time of the 
lease of the lisiere to the Hudson's Ba}' Company in 1839. which will 
l)e considered later, the subject of the southern limits of the Russian 
territory is several times mentioned. It should be borne in mind that 

«U. S. Case, App., p. 78. ^Iliid., p. 204. 

6 Ibid., p. 201. /Ibid., p. 204. 

clbid.,^p. 202. r/ British Case, App., p. 110. 

''Ibid., p. 203. /'U. S. Ca^^e App., p. 208. 



18 COl^NTER CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

none of the islands was includod in tho lease. Count Xesselrode. one 
of the negotiators of the treat^y of 1825, reported to the Emperor 
that tiie Russian American Company believed that "it would be 
advisable to cede to the Hudson's Bay Company the exclusive right 
of trade on the nhore of the continent between latitude 54-^ 4-0' and the 
Cross Strait"/' The territory covered by the lease is described in 
the Russian version of the lease as "the coa-^t (the islands excluded) 
and the interior portion of the land * * ^ situated between Cape 
Spencer * * * and latitude 54-- 40'.'^'' 

In his narrative of a journey around the world, published in IS-tT, 
Sir George Simpson, the governor of the Hudson's Bay Company, 
who signed the lease on behalf of that company, stated: •'"Russia, as 
the reader is of course aware, possesses o// the inaiidand, between lat. 
BlfF' 40' and lat. 60^, only a strip, never exceeding thirty miles in 
depth".'' When testifying before a select committee of the House of 
Commons in 1S57, Governor Simpson said: "There is a margin of 
coast marked yellow in the map [U. S. Counter Case, Atlas, No. 35] 
from o4P 40' up to Cross Sound, which we have rented from the Rus- 
sian American Company for a term of years".'' 

Mr. R. M. Martin, in his defense of the Hudson's Bay Company, 
pu))lished in 1849, states that the territory of the Russian American 
Company "includes all the Pacitic coast and islands north of 54^ -^^'".* 
Again he writes that the lease provided that "the Hudson's Ba}' Com 
pan}^ should enjo}' for ten years the exclusive use of the continent 
assigned to Russia by Mr. Canning in 1825, and extending from 
54-^ 4-0' north, to Cape Spencer".-^' 

In the application, made in 1859 b}' the Russian American Com- 
pan}' to the Russian Government, for the privilege to renew the lease, 
the territory is stated to l)e "a part of our i)ossessions on th(> North 
West coast of America, a strij) of land extending in a North W(>sterly 
direction from J,f" 40' north ".-^ In 1867 an American company 
attempted to enter into a lease with the Russian American Conipan}", 

(' U. S. Counter Case, App. p. ?>. 
''Ibid., p. (5; see also report upon lea^^e, Il)i(l,, p. 7. 
<-"U. S. Case, App. p. Sm. 
'^ U. S. Counter Case, App. p. 38. 
f Ibid., p. 46. 
/Ibid., p. 47. 
'/Ibid., p. 21. 



PORTLAND CAXAL AND 54° 4()' NORTH LATITUDP:. U^ 

;is the term of tlie tiurcemoiit with the Hudsoirs Bay Company was 
about to ('xpii'o. The Kussian (•oni])any reported the circuinstances 
to its oovoriinieiit and >tated that the area desired hy the Americans 
was enclosed by the t'oHowino' limits: 

•• Beginning at the point on the Pacitic Ocean where -5.^-' 4^' nortlt 
h(tltii(h> intersects 134- 8<>' of west longitude,'' thence up Chatham 
Strait to the head of Lynn Canal, thence north to the l)Oundary, 
thence southward along that boundary to '^ latitude oly^ Ifi' and thence 
west to the point of beginning-'/' The report further stated "that 
the said territory — excluding the islands — is exactl}' that which is 
now leased to the Hudson's Ba^- Company". It is manifest from 
this statement that the parallel 54^ 4<i' was considered the Rus- 
sian boundary to the south and that the astronomical rather than 
the geographical description was intended to control the line of 
demarcation until it entered Portland Canal. 

Major D. R. Cameron's report, published in 1878, is submitted in 
evidence by Great Britain together with all the appendix which 
accompanied it, except an extract from the Journal of the Royal 
Geographical Society of 1869. An examination of this extract* 
discloses that it is entirely at variance with the present claim of Great 
Britain as to the southern boundary and the course of the line to 
the head of Portland Canal. The expression used is " Portland Inlet 
tJn'ongJt the center of irhlch runs the houndary heticeen the British 
iind lately acqtdred territory of thi- United States.''' Attention 
is called in the British Case to the location of "Portland Inlet''.'' It 
is the name given to the main channel of the estuary, extending as 
far inland as Point Ramsden and bounded on the north and west by 
Wales and Pearse Islands.'' The boundary line, if drawn along the 
parallel o-i 4<>'. would enter this inlet. 

The location of this portion of the boundary seems to have remained 
substantially unquestioned until the meeting of the Joint High Com- 
mission in 181>8. It is true that theories and claims of an extravagant 
character had from time to time been advanced by Canadian writers 
in support of changing the acci^pted l)oundary and causing it to run 
up Clarence Strait and Behm Canal, up Clarence Strait and Ernest 

" r. S. Counter Case. App. p. :^4; .w nlxo Il)i<l., pp. ITS, 204, 2iV2. 

''Ibid., p. 52. 

c British Case, p. oV». 

'' British Case, Atlas, No. 25. 



20 COUNTER CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

Sound, or up tin* eustern side of llovilla Gigedo IsIjukI, These eliiinis, 
which will he Inter diseus.sed. orig-hiated in British Columbia and were 
never adopted or apparently even countenanced l)y the British Gov- 
ernment. 

In 1885 Mr. Bayard, the Secretary of State, wrote Mr. Phelps, the 
United States minister at London. u})on the subject of the Alaskan 
houudary. lie referred to the fact that some recent British (presum- 
ably meaning Canadian) geographers had detlected the line from "the 
main channel known as Portland Inlet" and caused it to pass through 
"a narrow and intricate channel living north-westward from Portland 
Inlet."" Secretary Bayard proceeded to show the untenaljle charac- 
ter of such a claim and the unwarranted deflection of the line to 
Pearse Canal, and added, "It is not, therefore, conceived that this 
water part of the boundary line can ever be called in question between 
the two Governments."^' 

Mr. Phelps enclosed this letter on January 19, 1886, to the Marquis 
of Salisbury.'' To the assumption on the part of the United States 
that the boundary, which had been unquestioned for sixty years and 
accepted as passing east of Pearse and Wales Islands, was not in con- 
troversy, the British Government made neither denial nor connnent. 
leaving the United States for over twelve years to conclude that its 
statement as to the southern boundary was in accord with the views 
of Great Britain. Having no indication from the British Govern- 
ment that it did not fully agree with the statement made by ]\Ir. 
Bayard, and having received apparent confirmation of that govern- 
ment's acquiescence, in the fact that the joint survey of 1893 and 1894: 
commenced its operations at the head and not at the entrance of Port 
land Canal, the United States in 1896 erected store houses on Pearse 
and Wales islands and the western shore of the upper reach of 
Portland Canal.'' 

Captain Gaillard, in charge of this work, visited during its prose- 
cution the British port of Port Simpson near the entrance to Portland 
Canal, making no secret of the purpose of his visit to the region. 
On November 3, 1896, he made his report, which was transmitted to 
Congress and by that body ordered printed as a public document on 

"British Cas^e, App., p. 250. 
'^Ibid., p. 251. 
''Ibid., p. 2oo,.footnoie. 
'^bid., p. 301. 



POKTLAND CANAL AND rA° 4u' NORTH LATITl'DK. 21 

December 11. 1896." Yet to these sovcivi«in acts of tlio United States 
the British ( iovernnient iniide neither protest nor ohjeetion till some 
time after the course of the southern boundary line had l)een Ijrouyht 
in question by the British High Conunissioners in 1S!»S. 

It may be even a matter for conjecture whether the British repre- 
sentatives on the commission of 1S1>S could, under their instructions, 
have conunitted their government to any claim advanced by them in 
regard to Portland Canal. There is no intimation in their instruc- 
tions'' that the line from the i)oint of beginning to the head of Port- 
land Canal was in question. On the contrary they are informed that 
''\fr(nu Portland Channel to (ilacier Ba}^ '" there arc difficulties in 
tracing the line: and '"that steps should be taken as early as possible 
for arriving at an agreement as to the intention of the parties to the 
Treaty of 1S25 as to how the boundary line along the strip yi'Y>?/i Port- 
land Canal to Mount St. Elias should be drawn.'' ^ 

Four years after the meeting of the Joint High Commission, the 
]Marquis of Lansdowne at the instance of the Canadian Privy Council 
directed the British ambassador at Washington to make inquiry of 
the United States Government '"as to the nature of these storehouses, 
and the reason for their erection in this territory the title to which 
was, and still is, the subject of diplomatic negotiations ])etween Great 
Britain and the United States".'' (The language of the Report of 
the Privv Council and of Lord Pauncefote's despatch is the same.) 

To the in(|uiry of the British amiiassador Secretary Hay replied, 
February 28, 1902,^ stating that he was not aware that the British 
Government had "ever advanced any claim to this territory before the 
signature of the Protocol of May 3<», 1898, preliminary to the appoint- 
ment of the Joint High Commission"*. On September 6, 1902, the 
British charge d'affaires addressed a note to the acting Secretary of 
State'" calling his attention to a note of the British minister, dated 
June 5, 1891, and stating that it raised an issue as to the boundary in 
the region where the storehouses had ))een erected. An examination 
of the note referred to'' shows it to consist of a ([notation from a 

« British Case, App. p. 300; U. S. Counter Case, Ai>p. p. 240. 

''British Case, App., pp. 297-298. 

<Ibid., p. 298. 

''Ilud., pp. 293, 294. 

f Ibid., p. 294. 

.'Ibid., p. 295. 

f/lbid., p. 208. 



22 COUNTER CASE OF THE IGNITED STATES. 

report of the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey statino- that 
acts of Congress had provided for a preliminary siirv«\v of the Avhole 
of the Alaskan boundary, from Cape Muzon to the Arctic Ocean, and 
a reminder, made at the instance of the Dominion Government, "that 
the (juestion of the boundary at this point is, at thv pvi^^cnt tiiii(\ the 
subject of some difference of opinion and of coiixidirat)!,' vni'vexpoDdr 
ence''\'' and could only be determined by an international couunission. 

The only "'point'"' at which the boundary at that time had been the 
subject of '"'considerable correspondence" between the two govern- 
ments was the Stikine River, There had been no stated difference of 
opinion then as to the location of Portland Canal. In fact the note 
of Sir .Julian Pauncefote, having failed to specify in what particular 
there was disagreement between the governments, was considered by 
the United States so general in character as to require no answer, 
and no reply was made b}" the Secretarv of State to his note. 

The United States, therefore, contends that the storehouses upon 
Pearse and Wales Islands were erected prior to a time when that ter- 
ritory w'as a subject of diplomatic negotiations; that previous to that 
time the British Government had not given any intimation that it 
questioned the universally accepted boundary between Cape ISIuzon 
and the head of Portland Canal; and that, in fact, that gov^eriunent 
had never officially made any claim to Pearse and Wales Islands until 
the submission of its printed Case to this Trilnuial, unless the verbal 
and unrecord(Hl claims of the British High Commissioners in 1898 can 
be termed official. 

The entire contention set out in the British Case as to the location 
of the southern boundary rests upon four points: (1) that the parallel 
54° 40' was not to be considered in drawing the southern boundary 
from Cape jNIuzon to Portland Canal; (2) that Vancouver's narrative 
was before the negotiators and therefore the nomenclature used 
therein must be followed: (3) that Sir Charles Bagot spoke of the 
coast between o*! and 54"^ 45' as necessary to Great Britain; and (4) 
that the United States on taking possession of the territory in 1S67 
failed to establish a military post on Wales Island but instead erected 
one oiT Tongass Island, northwest of Pearse Canal. 

The United States contends that it has shown that the course of the 
southern boundary was along 54^ 40' to the entrance of Portland 
Canal (or Inlet), and that such course was almost universally recog- 



PORTLAND CANAL AND r,4° -K>' NORTH LATITUDE. 23 

nized. It further repeats its eoiiteiition that A'aiu-ouver's narrative 
was not before tlie nesi'otlators. and that all reference to it is, there 
fore, irrelevant to the question at present under discussion. 

The ([notation from the amended proposal of Sir Charles Bagot in 
his neo-otiations at St. Petersburg in February and March. 1824. does 
not end. as quoted in the British Case, with a pcM-iod." The remainder 
of the sentence is most mat(M-ial in determining the application. He 
stated that the line proposed by the Russian plenipotentiaries through 
Portland Canal '* would deprive His Britannic Majesty of sovereignty 
over all the inlets and small bays lying between latitudes 56^ and 
54- 45'. [thus far the quotation from the British Case] whereof several 
((^v there is evert/ reason to helieve) coininunimte directly with the estah- 
lishments of the ITudson''s Bay Company and are consequently of essen- 
tial importance to its commerce; while on the other hand^ the Russian- 
American Comjxtny j}()x><esses no establishment on the mainland {terre 
ferme) hetween the tvK) aho re- mentioned parallels^ or tren on Princ<' of 
Wrdes Lsland, or the islands located hetween the latter and the main- 
lands'^ 

The maps l)efore the negotiators, that located the strait now known 
as Pearse Canal, showed that its eastern extremit}^ opened into Port- 
land Canal. It could not, "therefore, have been said to be one of " the 
inlets and small bays." of which there was every reason to believe 
several conuuunicated ''directly with the establishments of the Hud- 
<()n"s l)ay Compan\''' and were "'consetiuently of essential importance 
to its conunerce." 

Sir Charles was directing attention to the possibility of water com- 
munication with the interior, and it was therefore the coast of the 
mainland and supposed rivers emptying into its inlets and bays to 
which he referred, not to a narrow channel separating from the 
adjoining- shores islands lying in an estuary. Under these circum- 
stances the quotation has no bearing upon the location of the Portland 
Canal of the negotiators, but only fixes the southern limit of the 
mainland. 

It is noted in the British Case' that the "appellation, given in the 
Treaty to the canal, of 'passe', is in itself indicative of a narrow 
channer*. The United States does not conceive that this statement 

"British Case, p. 56. 'p. 57. 

&U. S. Case, App. p. 15i». 



2-1 OOLTNTEK CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

can 1)6 seriously relied upon hy Great Britain, since on the preceding 
page of the British Case the quotation from Sir CharU^s Bagot above 
discussed contains the expression '"'' dc J a par le miJleii de ce can(:d'\ 
referring to Portland Canal. 

Attention might also be called to the tact that Count Nesselrode 
used the expression '"'la passe ditt Duke of Clarence Sound"": that 
the expression "'the channel called Portland Channcr'. in Mr. Can- 
ning's draft convention of Jul}' 12, 1824, was rendered into the French 
'"'la passe dite le Portland Channel'"'; and that in the draft accom- 
pan3'ing the instructions to Mr. Stratford Canning are the words, 
"along the channel called Portland Channel"'.' If there is any sig- 
niticance to the use of "^>«6,s'(?", ''^ canaT' or ''• channel", the United 
States may confidently assert that such usage in the negotiations is 
strongly in favor of the l)road and natural channel south of Wales 
Island. ]n this connection the following statement appearing in 
Z' Univers (Paris, 1819) is material. The ])Oundary is said to Ijegin at 
the most southern point of Prince of Wales Island and "'to proceed 
eastward <d<>n<i tlie ijandld of Biff- ]^0' as far as the (jrtat inlet of the 
continent which is called Portland Channel".'^ And Dr. Henry 
Wheaton in describing the line of demarcation said that it was drawn 
"eastward to the <jreat inh-t-' named Portland Channel'. 

In regard to the fourth point upon which Great Britain relies, that 
hy establishing a military post at Tongass Island the United States 
practically admitted that the boundary line passed through Pearse 
Canal, then unnamed and unsurveyed, the sketch map' accompanying- 
Lieutenant Colonel R. N. Scott's report, f' upon whose recommendation 
the Tongass post was located, names the broad inlet "Portland Chan- 
nel." An examination of the report shows that Tongass Island was 
selected by Lieutenant Colonel Scott as a convenient location. l)ecause 
it was peculiarly fitted for the establishment of a military station.''' 
In "Schedule A'' of the report appears the statemcMit: "Naas Piver 
empties into Portland Channel at about 55^ north latitude and about 
thirty miles to the northward and eastward of Fort Simpson."' From 
these statements and the tracing accompanying the n^port. it is appar- 

« U. S. Case, App., p. 170. /U. S. Counter Case, Atlas, No. 31. 

'^Ibid., 183. r/U. S. Case, App., p. 349. 

(■British Case, App., p. ll.i. /'Ibid., p. 349. 

'?U. S. Counter Case, App., p. 2o4. »Il)i(l., p. 351. 
«Ibid., p. 2S3 



PORTLAND CANAL AND rA° 40' NORTH LATITUDE. 25 

cut that tlu' selection of Tongass Island was not t'l'oin any hclicf that 
tho l)onn(larv lino passed throuo-h the narrow channel iniinediateh' 
south of that island. 

In view of the evidence submitted on behalf of the United States 
and also on behalf of Great Britain, the United States contends that 
the Portland ('anal of the neg-otiators was the broad navigal)le chan- 
nel, recently termed "Portland Inlet;"' that the British Government 
has never otticially questioned that fact until the submission of its 
Case in the present controversy; and that the position now assumed 
))y Great Britain fails completely through want of evidence to 
support it. 

Besides the definite claim advanced in the British Case as to the 
location of Portland Canal, the statement is made that any argument 
based upon the facility of navigation of the main channel east of 
Pearso and Wales Islands in comparison with that to the westward 
of those islands " must be dissipated by the precise and unmistakable 
description of Portland Channel already given; to overbear which, 
on any such ground, would be to refuse all respect for, or adherence 
to, the terms of the treaty"/' 

It is fair to presume from this statement that, in case "the precise 
and utmiistakaltle description of Portland Channer' should fail, Great 
Britain concedes that a legitimate argument might be advanced as to 
the comparative navigability of the two channels in question. The 
United States, having shown that " Vancouver's Portland Canal*' was 
not the same as "the negotiators' Portland Canal" and that it is the 
former and not the latter which has been so precisely and unmistaka- 
l)ly descril)ed in the British Case, claims that a statement as to the 
navigability of those waters should receive due consideration in de- 
termining the southern boundary of Alaska. 

It is not to 1)0 understood that the United States presents this 
statement because of the failure of Great Britain to make the Port- 
land Canal of Vancouver and that of the negotiators coincide, but 
rather because mutual convenience and principles of international 
comity guided the plenipotentiaries of Groat Britain and Russia in 
the negotiation of the treaty of 1825. 

An examination of the map'^ of the region shows that Dixon 
Entrance and its inland continuation t)otween Point Wales and Comp- 

« British Case, p. 57. ^ U. S. Counter Case Atlas, Xo. 30. 



2G COT^NTER CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

toil Ishuul is :i iiatunil sea boundary t)ctw('eii the coast and islands to 
the north and those to the south. 'Vho ehannid to the east of Pearse 
and Wales Islands is broad and deep and suitable at all times for the 
passage of vessels. It is, moreover, the natural outlet of the upper 
portion of Portland Canal, for at least ninety per cent, of the tides in 
tlie latter ('l)b and tlow between Point Kamsden and Portiantl Point. ■' 

Pearse C-aiu^l, through which (Jreat Britain claims the boundary 
should pass, is a narrow and tortuous strait with no well defined 
channel. It is at several places less than a quarter of a mile wide, 
and at one point immediately south of Tongass Island the channel is 
less than 2.50 yards across and does not exceed five fathoms in depth. '' 
Furthermore, the canal, particularly north and west of Wales Island, 
is made exceedingly perilous b}^ the presence of numerous rocks, 
some exposed, others submerged, rising abruptly in mid-channel, 
while the tidal currents have often a velocity of three ©r four miles an 
hour, causing dangerous eddies and swirls at the junctions of the 
various channels. '■ The best pilots in Alaskan waters have declined 
to take steam vessels through these narrows on account of the known 
and unknown dangers.'' These conditions, to which should be added 
the prevalence of fogs and l)ad weather in those regions, make the 
waters, through which Great Britain proposes to draw the boundary 
line, impassable for sailing craft and practically so for steam vessels. '' 

Thus the only way the United States could reach the upper portion 
of Portland Canal, if the contention of Great Britain were allowed, 
would ]>e through the territorial waters of that power. According 
to the rule announced by the British commissioners during the 
negotiation of the treaty of Washington in 1871, the navigation of 
inland waters by the citizens of another nation could not be claimed 
as a right.' Thus to draw the boundary linc^ through Tongass Nar- 
rows and Pearse Canal would sul>stantially debar the United States 
from all communication with its territory lying along the western 
shores of Portland Canal above 55^^ north latitude. 

That such was the intention of the negotiators of the treaty, it is 

« U. 8. Counter Case, App., p. 239. 

f' U. S. Counter Case, Atlas, No. 30. 

cU. S. Counter Case, App., pp. 239,242; British Case, App., p. 14:4. 

<f U. S. Counter Case, App., p. 240. 

fibid., p. 242. 

/British Case, App., p. 211. 



PORTLAND CANAL AND ",4'- Id NoRTH LATITIDE. 2i 

not hclioM'd (ileal Britain will contend. Sir Charles Bao-ot in the 
noii'otiations at St. Potorsl)uro- vioorously ur^cd that it was ot" "veat 
importance to Cireat Britain to posses-s the sovereignty of the two 
shores of Portland Canal." His attempt to secure the desired 
boundary failed and the Russian proposal was accepted hy the British 
Go\-ernnient. lUit. if the line of (leniarcation should now be drawn 
through the narrow strait from Tongass Island to Portland Canal, 
Oroat Britain would as practically control the two shores of Portland 
Canal as if she had ol>tained the title to them for which Sir Charles 
Bagot unsuccessfully contended. 

To demark the southern lioundary as claimed in the British Case 
would, therefore, be contrary to the intention of the negotiators of the 
treaty of 1825 and against the meaning- of its provisions. 

The statement made in the British Case, that the admission of the 
Ignited States to the sovereignty of Pearse and "Wales islands and to 
the navigation of the channel southeast of them " would give [that 
government] domination of the continental coast opposite, and the 
important point of Port Simpson, to the great prejudice of Great 
Bi-itain.'*'' is substantially a declaration that in case both shores of that 
inlet come under British sovereignty the United States will beexcluded 
from navigating those waters. 

As to the argument advanced that these islands are valuable to 
Great Britain for defense, it seems needless to point out that the}^ are 
of fai' greater importance to the United States. Excluded from its 
possessions along Portland Canal, with the possil)le establishment of 
a British military post at the southern entrance to its inland waters, 
the territory of the United States would be menaced far more than 
the British possessions would ho by a nuitual right ot^ navigating the 
broad arm of the sea extending inland from Dixon Entrance. 

The British Case presents to the Tribunal several other ways of 
running the boundary line from Cape ]\Iuzon to the 56th parallel, if 
its definition of Portland Canal is rejected.'' They are Imsed upon 
the theories and specidations of Canadian writers, to which reference 
has already l)een made. As they are manifestly the very proposi- 
tions, in substance, which Sir Charles Bagot made in his negotiations 
and which were rejected by Russia, and as the}' are chiefly based in 

«U. S. Case, App., p. 163. 'Ilml., pp. 61-63. 

" British Case, p. 58. 



28 COUNTER CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

the British Case upon a hypothetical mountain Ijoundarv approaching 
tlie shore of the niainUmd near the northern end of Revilla Gigedo 
Island, the United States deems it iinnecessarv to consider them in 
detail or to traverse the logic upon which they rest. 

THE BOUNDARY FROM PORTLAND CANAL TO THE 56TH 
PARALLEL OF NORTH LATITUDE. 

The United States in its printed Uasechiinied that the line of demar- 
cation from the head of Portland Canal should follow the same course, 
on which the line touched the mainland, until it intersected the 56th 
parallel of north latitude. " This claim, in case the Tribuiial shall find 
that there is no mountain range, such as was contemplated in the treaty 
of 1825, within ten marine leagues of the shore, the United States 
understands that Great Britain substantialh' concedes *. The boundary 
at this place, as drawn in the British Case (Map No. 26 in the Atlas 
accompanying this Counter Case) depends upon a mountain boimdary 
intersecting the 56th parallel within ten marine leagues of the western 
shore of the continent. In case such range is more than ten marine 
leagues from the shore, or in case it should not intersect the 56th 
parallel, then the line proposed l)y Great Britain would fail. 

Though this portion of the line seems hardly of sufficient importance 
to warrant an extensive discussion, the peculiar interpretation placed 
upon the language of the treaty and the resulting line now claimed by 
Great Britain are so nuu-h at variance with the general acceptance and 
understanding of the boundary for three quarters of a century, that 
they demand at least a passing notice. 

It is asserted in the British Case that the line should be drawn to the 
place where a mountain range extending along the coast touches the 
56th parallel, or in the case of there 1)eing no such mountain range, 
then to the point where a line drawn ten marine leagues from, and 
parallel to,^the western continental shore would cross that degree of 
latitude. This interpretation of the language of the treaty the United 
States conceives to be contrary- to the intent of the article and at 
variance with the usual method of tracing a boundary. 

It is established by the Kussian text of this portion of the treaty^ 
that the "it"' of the English version and the 'S/A'' of the French 
refer to the line, not to the canal. This also appears from the lan- 

« U. S. Case, p. 104. cU. S. Case, App., p. 7. 

f^ British Case, p. 70. 



HorXDARV FROM PORTLAND CANAL TO .",()'! H I'ARALLKL. 29 

guao'e of tlio treaty itself, as any other interpretation would \ iolato 
the grammatical rules of the French lano'uag'e. The terms of the 
treaty. If changed to correspond Avith this interpretation, would read, 
the said line shall ascend to the north along the channel called Port- 
land Channel as far as the point of the continent where f/ir ///le >^tvikQt> 
the tifty-sixth degree of north latitude. There is no suggestion here 
tiiat the line should tuin al)rupth' to the east or the west: on the con- 
trary" it is to continue "to ascend to the north''. It is apparent that 
hy a natural reading of this description, without distorting it to meet 
some preconceived theory as to the rest of the boundary, the line 
would pursue the same course, which it was then following, until it 
intersected the 56"^ of north latitude. 

Besides being the natural and not the forced interpretation of the 
treaty, such delineation is favored by the physical conditions existing 
at the head of Portland Canal. Beyond the "'low marsiiy land" 
described b}' Vancouver, there extends a clearly defined valley for 
several miles inland from the termination of the tiord. wdiich coincides 
with its general trend, thus forming a natural boundary as far as the 
56th parallel. « 

In contrast to this convenient line of demarcation. Great Britain 
claims that on reaching the head of Portland Canal the boundary 
should turn abrupth" toward the west at right angles to the course of 
the channel, mounting the precipitous side of the tiord, and should 
follow this course for a distance of almost sixty miles before reaching 
the 50th parallel, instead of live miles if drawn through the open 
valley of the Bear River. 

It seems that, in attempting to reach a suital)le starting point for a 
theoretical moimtain boundary near tlu^ continental shore. Great 
Britain has failed to observe that this portion of the proposed line 
actujiUy intersects the northern part of Behm Canal, in fact cutting in 
two Bell Island, thus giving to Great Britain an outlet to the sea 
below the 5f)th parallel. Sir Charles Bagot had opposed the boundary. 
whi«"h was finally agreed u})<)n in the treaty, on the verv ground that 
Great Britain would be deprived of "sovereignty over (/// the inlets 
and small bays lying between latitudes 5tF and 04-4-5'.'"' Great Brit- 
ain now proposes to secure some of these very inlets and small bays, 
w hich the Bi'itish ministei' in l.si>-l: failed to obtain and on account of 
which he suspended the negotiations at St. Petersburg. 

«U. 8. Counter Ca^e, Ai>p.. p. 241. ^ U. S. Case, Apji.. p. 1.39. 

26(320 3 



30 COUNTER CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

Tlie iiroii (soiitli of ;")() north latitiulc). between tiie line proposed in 
the British Case and the one which tlie United States requests the Tri- 
bunal to find, forms a narrow wedi>o-sliaped strip of territory not 
exceeding 150 square miles, bounded on the north by the ofith parallel 
and on the east Iw the valley of the Bear River. The area in dispute 
seems insigniricant, ])ut the deterniiniition of the line in accordance 
with the contention of Great Britain forms an important factor in the 
theory of the boundary presented in the British Case. If the line 
reaches 56-" north along the course contended for ])y the United States, 
it is not to l)e supposed that the negotiators, without mentioning a 
change of direction, intended that it should turn on that parallel due 
west for sixty miles. The mountain chain which the_y stated that it 
was to follow must have been, in their minds, approximately near the 
point where the line reached the parallel, though not necessarily inter- 
secting it. It is obvious that the hypothetical coast nuige of the 
British Case, if a series of isolated peaks can be so callcMl. does not 
meet this condition. 

In connection with this portion of the ])oundary the Tribunal is 
recjuested to examine the maps submitted in evidence by .both the 
United States and Great Britain, which show that the universal under- 
standing of the treaty by cartogra})hers and b}' governments for 
seventy live years was the same as that now claimed b}'' the United 
States. 

Particular attention is directed to the Admiralty chart of 186S of 
Portland Canal." It will be observed that the mountains lying to the 
eastward of the channel were named b}' Stati' Commander Pender (the 
officer in charge of the survey) in honor of distinguished British sub- 
jects, while those along the western shore were named after citizens 
of the United States, l)y this means indicating to which nation the 
territory belonged. The Bear River valley is shown as far as the ."iOth 
parallel; to the ioe)it of this valley and nortJi of Portland Canal appear 
Mount Johnson and the Reverdy Mountains. The\^ lie directly in the 
area now claimed by (Jreat Britain. 

From the text of the treaty, from the evidence before the Tiibunal, 
and from the long acquiescence of Great Britain as to the meaning 
of the treaty, the United States submits that the line between the 
head of Portland Canal and 5(5- of north latitude should be drawn 

" British Case, Atlas, No. 23. 



TIIK LISIEKK AND ITS EASTERN HOUNDARV LINE. 31 

liii'cctly to that parallel aJDiiL;' the axi-^ of the \alley. which forms a 
contimiatioii of Portland Canal, and not diverted to a point sixty miles 
to the westward in order to meet a chain of mountains, the existence 
of which is denied by the United States, and the absence of which is 
a tlirnia lively estal)lishe(l. 

THE LISli:RE AND ITS EASTERN BOUNDARY LINE. 

The Tnited States, in considerino- that portion of the line of demar- 
cation, described in Articles III and IV of the treaty of lS:>r), between 
the odth parallel of north latitude and the 141st meridian of west 
longitude, contends that the claims made in the British Case and the 
l)oundary drawn therein (Map No. 2(i of the Atlas accompanying- this 
Counter Case) are based upon false premises, which are in direct conflict 
with the e\'idence adduced and contrary to the intcMitiou of the high 
contracting- parties and the meaning of the treaty. 

The claim of Great Britain and the authorit}' to draw tiie line of 
frontier as is done in the British Case rest upon the assumption of 
a •'datum line"" })ased upon an erroneous meaning given to the 
words "co^e!" and " ockin ;^^ upon the assumption that "Ja crete des 
inontagnes^'' means the "summits" instead of the "cresf" of the moun- 
tains;'' upon a further assumption that distinct peaks can be said to 
parallel a coast line; upon ignoring the value of the word '' .slnuos lies'''* 
in the negotiations and treaty:'' and. above all, u})on a misconstruction 
or a failure to construe the plain intent of the negotiators as evidenced 
in the correspondence. 

The word eofe or coast may l)e employed in three distinct ways; 
(1) geographically, to designate the phux'tcal coast^ the line where 
water ends and land begins; (2) legally, to designate the jxiUtlcal 
endsf^ the line adopted in international law as the basis for the 
extension of nninicipal jurisdiction over portions of the high seas 
contiguous to the territory of a nation; and (3) descriptively, as the 
/KUiie of a particular region. 

(1) The physical coast line of the mainland under discussion, of 
Avhich rlvage and .^horc are synonyms, follows the limits of salt-water 
along all the meanderings of the continental margin, without refer- 
ence to the adjacent islands. 

(2) The political coast line (since all arms of the sea not exceeding 

"British Case, p. 73. 'Ibid., pp. 1(3, 73. 

''Ibid., pp. 27, 81. 



32 COUNTER CASE OF THE CNITED STATES. 

six luilcs, ;iii(l ill soiiio c'iises more, in width, and all islands arc piac- 
tically treated as portions of the mainland) extends outside the islands 
and waters between them. In the present instanee the jjolitical or 
legal coast line drawn southward from Ca])e Spencer would citjss to 
the northwestern shore of Chichag'of Island and follow down the west- 
ern side of that island and of Baranof Island to Cape ()nniianey: at 
this point it would turn northward for a short distance and then cross 
Chatham Strait to the western shore of Kuiu Island: thence again 
turning soutlnvard along that shore and along the outlying islets 
west of Prince of Wales Island, the line would round Cape Muzon 
and proceed eastward to Cape Chacon; thence following northward 
along the eastern shore of Prince of Wales Island to Clarence Strait 
it would cross the latter at its entrance and proceed southeastward to 
the parallel of 5-i" 40' at the point where it enters Portland Canal. 
Thus the political coast line of Southeastern Alaska does not touch 
the mainland between Cape Spencer and 55^ of north latitude. 

It should also be noted that there are no "inland waters" composed 
of salt water within the physical coast line. })ut within the political 
coast line there are a great number of straits, sounds and inlets, 
formed by the contour of the continent and the proximity of the 
islands to it and to one another. 

(3) The coast used in a descriptive way is found in the nanu^s the 
"Northwest Coast", ""the coast of Northwest America", and ''the 
Coast"" when used as a proper name or as the synonym of such 
name. It may or may not in this sense include the islands adjacent 
to the territory so named. 

The word ocenn^ of which mcr and ,svv/ are synonyms, is similarly 
used in three ways; {\) p/ii/s!c«ilh/, to designate the entire body of salt 
water which surrounds all the continents and islands on the globe; 

(2) poUt/adly^ as the waters ))eyond the legal coast line: and 

(3) dencr'iptivdy^ as a proper name of a particular expanse of the 
high seas. 

The United States contends that the words "cr5^e" and '''' oa'an " in 
Articles III and W of the treaty of 1825 are used in their physical 
and descriptive senses onl}^, and that to draw their limits artiticially 
as is done in the case of a political coast is inconsistent with their 
meaning and with the intention of the parties to the convention. It 
would api)ear that a similar use of the word "coast" is to be found 



THK LISIEKE AND ITS KASTEKN HOl'NUAKY LINK, 33 

in tlu' pi'ochiinatioii and statutos of Groat Britain, which granted to 
the Province of Nowfoundhmd jurisdiction over the adjacent coast 
of Lat)rad()r." and w hich is interpreted in the niai) of tlic Dominion of 
Canada issued in 1902 by the Canadian Department of the Interior.* 

As an example of the use of the word '"coast" in the negotiations, 
attention is directed to the folk)wing, which appears in ]\Ir, Canninjr's 
draft convention of July 12, iS24, "the line of frontier * " * 
shall ascend northerly alonu' the t-hannid calhul Portland Channel, till 
it strikes the tYA/.s-f of the continent/'*^ The same expression is ag-ain 
used in the draft accompanying the instructions to Mr. Stratford 
Canning, December 8, lS'2i:.'^ It is evident that the "coast" referred 
to at the head of Portland Canal was the physical coast of the conti- 
nent. 

Sir Charles Bagot, in a paper which he delivered to the Russian 
plenipotentiaries at St. Petersburg, used in the same sentence the 
expressions, "distant de la .cote de 10 Heaths marines^'' and "aladis 
tance delO Ueues marines da riiytge. ''"''' Sir Charles thus used the words 
"f6'^(^"" and '"'' rivage'''' synonymously. The latter word could never be 
construed so as to refer to a political coast line. Jt is invariably applied 
to the physical coast. 

The same use of the word is found at the present time, the v,ord 
"coast" being applied to the margin of inlets far be^^ond the artificial 
coast of the British Case. Dr. (xeorge ]\I. Dawson, whq was familiar 
with the Canadian contention in its early stages, and informally dis- 
cussed the ([uestion with Dr. W . H. Dall in February, 1888, stated, in 
a narrative of his (exploration in the Yukon region, made in 1887: 
" We l)egan the ascent of the Lewes, and from its head-waters we 
crossed the mountains by the Chilcoot Pass and reached the voadat tJce 
],,-(td of Lynn Can<d on the 20th September."-^' He wrote of the White 
Pass: "It leaves tin; coast at tlie month of the Shhagn^an Rirev ^\^ 
miles south of the head of Taiya Iidet."-' And again: "The passes 
connecting the, coast with the interior country, from the heads of 
Lynn Canal to the upper watei's of the Lewes, were always jealously 
guarded 1)V thr ('hillaf ami ('hiU'oot Indians of tin' roast. '-''^ 

Thus Dr. Dawson, before his conference with Dr. Dall. employed 



" r. S. Counter Case, App., i^). l's:5-l'S.'>. > U. S. Case, App., p. 15i». 

f'lbid., p. 2.=>0, No. \?fy. /U. S. Counter Case, App.. y. "258. 

<l'. S. Car?e, App., p. 1S.3. f/Ibid., p. 261. 
('Britisli Case, -App., ]>. IK). 



34 CUUNTEK CASE OF THP: LWITEJ) STATES. 

the natural and customary meaning- of the word "coast," in the same 
Avay tliat it was used ])v the negotiators of the treaty of 1825. 

'Vhv liritisli Case asserts that "it is ch'ar that 'cote' and "Ocean' 
refer to the same thing.""" If this statement is correct, then if the 
latter -word is applied to the waters at the ht>a(l of L^Min ('anal it con- 
tirms the meaning of "coast" contended foi- by the United States. In 
1898 Sir Wilfrid Laurier, during a debate in the Dominion House of 
(\)innious. said: " But if we had adopted the route Ijy the Lynn Canal, 
that is to say, had chosen to build a railway from Dyea by the Chilkat 
Pass up to the waters of the Yukon, we would have to place the ocean 
terminus of the railway upon what is now American territory.''^ A 
little later in the same debate he spoke of "that strip of territory />/t 
the Sea ii'lih-lt ]i(is Dyea as it^ /mrhoiu';'^ iv\\([ rei)eated the expression 
"ocean terminus.''''' 

It is clear that the Canadian Prime Minister used "sea "' as a syn- 
onym of "ocean," and that he considered them applical)le to th(» salt 
w^ater in the neighl)orhood of Dyea, that is, at the head of Lynn Canal. 

In connection with the meaning of "r«0/--" adopted in the British 
Case, much importance is given, and considerable space is devoted to 
the instructions issued in lfP93 b}^ Dr. T. C. Mendenhall. superin- 
tendent of the United States Coast and (ieodetic Survey, to his su))or- 
dinates who were to take part in the joint survey to be undei'taken 
under the convention of July 22, 1892; in which he directed them to 
carry their operations inland "thirty nautical mil(\s from the coast of 
the majidand in a direction at right angles to its general trend.*"'' 

Whih' the United States appreciates (he fact that this official used 
an expression which might be construed into an admission on his part 
that he coincichnl with the Canadian view, it emphatically denies that 
such was his intention. In an article subsecjuently published he clearly 
delined iiis attitude upon the construction of tli<^ treaty.' which he. as 
an official, had no authority to do under the instiuctions issued to him 
prior to the joint survey.' His position in regard to the boundary, as 
shown 1)}^ this article, was directly opposed to the construction which 
has been placed upon his woixls by Great Britain. 

« British Case, p. 72. </ British Case, pp. 73, 74. 

& U. 8. Counter Case, Ai)p., ]>. 17,1. ' U. S. Counter Case, App.. pp. 2(i9-:^76. 

t'lbi.l., p. 172. .'Ilnd., p. 2(iS. 



THE LTSIERE AND ITS EASTERN HorNDAKV LINE. 35 

FurtlitTinorc. Pr. Mendoiiluill was suj^erintciulciit in lM»4aiKl issued 
instiuctions to the United States surveviiii;- i)arties. which were in the 
tield that year. Several of the surveyors were assigned to the region 
about the heads of Chilkat and Taiya Iidets. In their instructions the 
following- appear: ''"As the trigonometrical survey of the Chilkat and 
Taiya Iidets to tlw 10 marine Jt-ague limit is of the greatest importance, 
tJic t(>j)i>(/r<ij>fiij [of ihr hiii'i r jxirtioiix at haxf) heing secondary, you 
will first assist in the triangulation."" "On receipt of these instruc- 
tions you will please arrange to proceed to Alaska and make a topo- 
graphical reconnoissance of the country to the 7)(//'f/nrfn'd and eadvard 
oi '\1'A\\\\\\\\(^X v^\\dK\\Q\'i<i the 10 iiuiriuiJeagiie iiniit. * * * The 
party of Assistant Pratt will be engaged in the survey of the Chilkat 
Inlet and river to the houndanj."'' "On receipt of these instructions 
you will please arrange to proceed ^^ * * to L.vnn Canal, where 
3'ou will execute the triangulation and topographical reconnoissance 
of the Chilkat and Taiya Inlets to the 10 marine leagae limit. * * * 
Parties under the charge of Messrs. J. A. Flemer and H. P. Ritter 
will be operating in the mountain region adjoining Chilkat and Taiya 
Inlets. * * ". It will 1)e borne in mind that the triangulation 
to the 10 marine league limit and the topographical reconnoissance 
of tJie a jypt'r portions of the inlets are of tirst importance."'' 

According to the British contention the artificial coast line would 
cross Lynn Canal some 60 nautical miles south of the heads of Taiya and 
Chilkat Inlets which would, therefore, be over 25 miles beyond a lisiere 
of 10 leagues in width based upon such a coast line. The United 
States parties in 1894 were assigned by Dr. Mendenhall to survey Taiya 
Inlet and River and Chilcat Inlet and River,'' "with a view to the 
ascertainment of the facts and data necessary to the permanent delim- 
itation" of the ])oundary;' and it should be noted thiit an attache of 
the British commissioner accompanied oik^ of the United States parties 
which surveyed l)oth inlets and rixers.' 

The instructions issued to the Canadian .surveying parties in 1894 
have not been made public nor have they as yet been produced before 

« U. S. Counter Case. App., p. 279. 

&Ibid., pp. 280-2.S1. 

fU. S. Counter Case, Ai)p.. p. 276. 

f' British Ca.se, App., p. 284. 

' Ibi.l., p. 282. 

/Il)id., p. 2S4. 



36 COUNTKR CASE OF THE UNITP:!) STATES. 

the Tril)iin;il. Their contents. thtM'et'ore. eun only be eonjectured 
from the h)e:ilities in which the parties operated. These are shown 
b\" the charts of their survey," and the joint re})ort of the Connnis- 
sioners.'^ The signiticant fact is, that they surveyed the shoi'es and 
head of l^ynn CanaL' It appears, therefore, that the Canadian 
officials deemed it essential to obtain data for determiiuno- the ])oundarv 
far ))eyond a line drawn ten leat^ues from the "* coast", which is now 
contended for in the British Case. 

It is needless to comment further upon the argument in the British 
Case, founded upon Dr. ^MendenhalFs words "the general trend" of 
the mainland coast. His instructions of 1S;)-I: are conchisive against 
the interpretation placed upon them l)y Great Britain; and the acts of 
the Canadian surveyors in operating about the head of Lynn Canal 
are far more contirmator}^ of the position of the United States than 
Dr. McndenhalTs inadvertent expression is of the British contention. 

The '• argument in support of tlie British contention * "" * 
based upon Article VII of the Treaty" is that the inland seas, gulfs, 
havens and creeks of the possessions of each power, to which the sub- 
jects of the other could resort for the term of ten years,'' were confined 
to the maiidand coast of the Usiere^ and that it was, therefore, implied 
that some of these waters were within the British dominions. This 
assertion rests upon interpreting "the coast mentioned in article 
three" to be the coast used in determining the limits of the //.s/c^/v and 
not ""the coast of the continent and islands of America to the North- 
west",' which is the use of the word in its descriptive sense and refers 
to the region couuuonly known as the "Northwest Coast". 

Article VII of the British treaty is merely a repetition of Article 
IV t)f the American treat}' of 1824. Mr. (xeorge Canning, in his 
instructions to Mr. Stratford Camiing, said that the stipulation for 
reciprocal privileges of trade could " be best stated precisely in the 
terms of article 4 of the American convention."' The two articles 
are as follows: 

» British Case, Portfolio of Charts. 
'' British Ca^^e, Ajip., p. 2cS2-28<). 
'•Ibid., p. 284. 
^'U. S. Case, A pp., p. 1(3. 
' ll)id., p. 15. 
.'"Ihiil., p. 211. 



THE LISIERK AND ITS EASTP:KN HolXDAKV LINE. 



37 



BRITISH TKKATY. 



A.MKHH AN THKATV, 



VII. II est aussi euteiidu que, pendant II est neaiinioins entendu (|ue jiendant 
I'espace de dix Ans, a dater de la signa- un teinie de dix annees a compter de la 
ture de eette Convention, les Vaisseaux signature de la preseiite convention, les 
des deux Puissances, on cenx apparte- \'aisseaux des deux Tuissances, ou rpii 
nans a leur sujets respectifs, jiourront appartiendraient a leur citoyens ou sujets 
recij)ro(|uenient fn'Hpienter, sans entrave respectifs, pourront reciproquenient fre- 
(|uelconque, toutes les Mers interieures, (pienter sans entrave (|uel('onque, les niers 
les Golfes, Havres et Criques sur la cute interieures, les golfes, havres et criques 
iiientloimi't' (laiis rArtirle III, aim (Vy faive ■ sur la Cote inentiou/e dans Vartkle prece- 
la peche et le I'onnnerce avec les Indi- dnit, atin il'v (aire la ju'-clie et le coin- 
genes." nierce avec les naturels du pays.'' 

The coast mentioned in the '•preceding- article'' of the American 
treaty is "A/ Cote nord out-st cV Anierlque^'^^ which is stated to be 
both nortli and south of the parallel 54^ 40'. It is evident that the 
intention of these articles is the same. British subjects were privi- 
leged to frequent the waters of the Russian possessions north of 54^ 
40'; Russian subjects had a similar privilege in regard to the waters 
of the possessions of Great Britain south of that line. 

It should be added that the position now assumed in the British 
Case is directly opposed to that taken by Great Britain in the Fur Seal 
Arbitration. The British Counter Case, tiled in that arbitration, 
stated, that it had been proved in the British Case ''that the words 
'northwest coast' were used, throughout the negotiations, to include 
not less than the whole of the North American coast from IVhring 
Strait to latitude 51-^ north.'''' After referring to the words of Mr. 
Canning, which are quoted above, it is asserted: "This shows that 
]\Ir. Canning did not understand the term 'northwest coast' to be 
confined to the 'lisiere.' the proposals relating tt) which had one 
unvarying condition, namely, that it was to lielong to Russia."'' 

In the printed argument of Great Britain submitted to the tril)unal 
at Paris, the following appears: ''Article VI dealt only with the 
lisiere * * * Article VII, on the other hand, dealt with the 
coast of the continent mentioned in Article III: it gave to the two par- 
ties a reciprocal right of visit to all the inland waters, haibours, etc., 
on this coast: it applied, therefore, to the coast of the whoh^ Russian 
possessions, as well as to the whole of the coast of the British posses- 



«U. S. Case, App., p. 1.3. 
Hbid., p. 9. 



<?U. S. Counter Case, App., p. 191. 
'Ml.i.l., p. litL'. 



38 COTNTER CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

sions."" In the oral argument l)eforo the tritmnal. one of the learned 
counsel on l)ehalf of Great Britain was asked: "What do you say is 
the point of the shore referred to as the 'coast" in article \'ll (" To 
-vvliich he replied: '"The 'coast' is the whole of coast up to Behring 
Straits/"'' It is needless to point out further that the present position 
of Great Britain is utterly inconsistent with that taken ten years ago in 
the Fur Seal Arbitration. 

As to the course of the boundary descri])ed in the treaty, the Tnited 
States asserts that it must be read" in connection with the maps which 
were known to have been before the negotiators at St. Petersburg and 
London, In the Russian map of 1802/ the Faden map of 1823/' the 
Vancouver charts/ and in one of the Arrowsmith maps' (the others 
showing no mountains) there is a clearly detined continuous range of 
mountains extending from 50- north latitude, in the neighl)orhood of 
the head of Portland Canal, to 141^ west longitude and following 
approximately the physical coastline of the continent around all the 
inlets. It was. beyond controversy, to this range of mountains, 
shown on the maps, that the negotiators referred in their conferences 
and correspondence and along the crest of which they intended that 
the line of demarcation should run. 

In the "observations'"' of the Russian plenipotentiaries handed to 
Sir Giiarles Bagot on March 7, 1824,'' tlu^ phi-ase 'Vr/ cluihie de nuni- 
tagne.s'^ twice appears. Count Nesselrode in connnenting upon the 
boundary tixed by the treaty wrote to the Russian Minister at London 
on May 20, 1825, of "//;?r chalne de rii(»i)f<i(j)U's'\ In his letter of 
A})ril 10, 1824,'' Mr. Pelly of the Hudson's Bay Company, having 
examined the despatch of Sir Charles Bagot giving an account of the 
negotiations at St. Petersburg, used the phrases ''the supposed cJidin 
of mountains" and " the nearest chain of mountains ". Again Mr. Pelly, 
in connnenting u])on the Russian counter draft, which had been sub- 
mitted to him for criticism, wrote on Ortober 20. 1824, to the Foreign 
Office,' objecting to the second article on the ground that it "should 
more accurately detine the eastern boundary from the Portland Canal 
to the 61st degree of north latitude to l)e the elm hi of mountains at a 

«U. 8. Counter Case, App., p. 194. /Ibid., No. 8. 

''Tl)i(l., ]). liXj. iiV. S. Case, Ajip., p. KiO. 

^U. S. Case, Atlas, No. 6. /' Britisli Case, Ai)p.. p. 7S. 

'^British Case, Atlas, Xo. 10. Ubid., \^. 110. 

«U. 8. Case, Atlas, Nn. 4 and :^. 



TIIK LISIKKK AND ITS EAST?:RX BOUNDARY LINE. 39 

' tivs-pctito distance do la t'ote/ Imt tliat if the suiiiuiit of those moun- 
tains t'Xfccd 10 leag'ues, that the said distance be substituted instead 
of the mountains"'. 

In the last ([notation fi'om Mr. Pelly it is apparent that the phrases 
•'the chain of mountains", "those mountains" and "the mountains'" 
are used synonymously; and this same use is observable throughout 
the correspondence pi'ior to the sio-nature of the treaty. 

It is sul)mitted that the British contention that "the phrase Macrete 
des montag'nes' signifies the tops of the mountains adjacent to the sea"'' 
is directly opposed to the e\idence before the Triliunal. and that the use 
in the British Case of the yjlural "sunuuits".^ thereby conveying the 
idea of distinct and separate mountains rather than a continuous moun- 
tain ridge, is unwarranted. Throughout the correspondence the singu- 
lar only is employed. The phrases used are "Zc/ cret<'-\'' ^''Ja cime''^ 
and "the summit"/' The literal translation of crPte in the Russian 
\ersion of the treaty is "backl)one".' which implies extension and can 
only be applied to a mountain range or chain and not to isolated moun- 
tains. It is, moreover, impossible to conceive of mountains, except in a 
range, ixiraJhlutg a coast. The word "parallel" convcN's the idea of 
extension and continuity. 

The United States does not understand that it is asserted in the 
British Case that the line of demarcation proposed therein follows a 
continuous chain of mountains, but that it rests upon the contention 
that "/rt Crete'''' signities "tops.'' If this definition fails, the boundarv 
Ix'tween the SUth parallel and the 141st meridian as now drawn by 
Great Britain nuist be abandoned, for no evidence has been adduced 
of the existence of a continuous dominant range of mountains approx- 
imately paralleling the physical coast of the continent and within ten 
leagues therefrom, while on the contrary the proof that no such lange 
exists is conclusi\e. '' 

The purpose of Russia in demanding a //.s/t'/v- on the continent was, 
as has been shown in the Case of the United States/' to prevent the 

« British Case, p. 81. 

'ai)i(l., p. 27. 

'■U. 8. Case, App., pp. \'.\, 'lY^, 214. L'ls. lMO. l'2(>, L'29. 

'/Il)i(l., pp. 185, 18S. 

'Ibid., p. 211; British Case, Apj). pp. 110, IIH. 

fV. 8. Case, App., pp. 7, S. 

r/Iljid., pp. 529-o3S: V. S. ('omitrr Case, pp. 2.i7, 202-265. 

''' p. 45. 



40 COUNTER CASE OF THE UXITED STATES. 

Hudsoirs Bay C'oinpain' from sccuriiio- a foothold on the seashore, 
from which their trappers and ti'ach'rs eould successfully compete 
with the Kussian American Company and their Indian hunters along 
the maiidand and among the islands. An examination of the frontier 
of the Hsu-re, now proposed by Great Britain (Map No. 26 in the 
Atlas accompanying- this Counter Case), shows that every important 
inlet and hay would, by such demarcation, have belonged to Great 
Britain, and only the peninsulas and promontories would have been 
Russian territory. Great Britain shows that the force of this fact, so 
evident in the negotiations, is appreciated; and to meet it declares that 
'"the truth is that the only ditticulty is that caused by reading into the 
Treaty a controlling principle that r>ritish territory shall nowhere 
touch salt water, and by rejecting every application of the Treaty 
w^hich does not produce a result in conformity with that assumption. 
It is submitted that no vestige of any such principle is to be found 
in the Treat}'.''" 

The United States asserts that the intention of the parties to the 
treaty is vital to its true interpretation; that such intention between 
nations is the very essence of the agreement; and that any material 
variance from the intention must give place to an interpretation in 
accordance with it. Besides the facts which have been set forth in 
the Case of the United States, a statement in the British Case shows 
that substantially the same opinion as that held by the United States 
concerning the purpose of the b'siere has been reached by Great 
Britain. It reads as follows: ''In the third place, the extent and 
the function assigned to the Uslt-re which Russia desired to possess, 
are worthy of note. It w as to be a mere fringe, as a protection and 
a 'point d'appui.' It will be found that this conception of the Jhure 
was not departed from "'.''' How the '"mere fiingc,"' which Great 
liritain now claims to have been the extent of Russia's continental 
possessions below mount St. Elias, was to form ""a protection and a 
'point d'appui' '' is not explained. 

The United States agrees that the lisicre "svas to ])rotect and support 
the interests of Russia in the archipelago and iidand waters along the 
maiidand shore, but it denies that the Uxterc of the British Case would 
have performed those services. 

Incidental to a consideration of the inland boundary of the lis/ere, 

« British Case, p. 75. ' b ibid, p. 19. 



THE LISIERE AND ITS EASTEHX HolNDAKV LINE, 41 

t'orwliich (iroat IJritaiti is now coiitciulinL;. the assiiiiiptioii tliat nioiiiit 
St. P]lias is within British tcrritorv" is. it is suhniittcd. cntirrly 
unwarranted. Thi'ouoliout the no<i()tiati<)ns it is api)aront that that 
mountain was to form a conspicuous hmdmai-k of tlic frontier;'' and 
tlie northei'n l)oun(lar\'. ah)iio- the 18t>th mei'idian of west longitude, 
'which had ))een sul)stantially agreed upon l)_v the negotiators, was 
changed to the 141st in order that its lofty peak might mark the 
termination of the llstere^ since the latter meridian more nearly 
ai)proached the mountain.'' 

Mount St. P21ias lies within ten marine leagues of the ocean and 
overtops all other mountains intervening between it and the coast. 
The United States submits that to draw the line of demarcation along 
the southern spurs of the great mountain would be in conflict with 
the evidence and with the manifest intention of the parties to the 
treaty of 18i{5. 

The extent of the llisiere, as interpreted by both of the treaty powers 
and by other nations for substantially seventy-five years is directly 
opposed to the present contention of Great Britain.'' The particular 
attention of the Tribunal is directed to the following British. Canadian, 
and British Columl)ian Maps: the Arrowsmith map of 1833:' the 
Bouchette map of 1S.53:'" the Cauchon map of 1857; f^ the British Ad- 
miralty chart of 1861, corrected to 1S06:'' the Hudson's Bay Com- 
pany's map of 1850;' the Arrowsmith map of ISOS;' the official map 
of British Columbia, 1884;^ the map of the Canadian Geological Sur- 
vey of 1884;' Sir George Simpson's map of 1847:'" map of Select Com- 
mittee of House of Conmions. 1857;" official map of British Columbia, 

''British Case, p. 6. 

^U. S. Case, App., pp. 168, 178, 180, 181; <SVv aUo U. 8. Cuniiter Case, App., pp. 
17S, :?00. 

' LT. S. Counter Cane, App., p. 211. 

■' U. 8. Case, App., pp. 511-523; U. S. Case, Atlas; British Case, Atlas; U. S. Coun- 
ter Case, App., pp. 24:^-250; U. S. Counter Case, Atlas. 

'= U. S. Case, Atlas, No. 12. 

.' Ihiil., No. 17. 

f/Il)i<l., No. li». 

/'Ibid., No. 2;i. 

'■ British Case, Atlas, No. 19. 

./Il)irl., No. 22. 

^Ibid., No. .31. 

abi.l.. No. 32. 

^"U. S. Counter Case, Atlas, No. 33. 

^'Ibid., No. 35. 



42 COUNTER CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

1859;" the British Adininiltv chart of 1ST>S;'' and the ollicial ( antidian 
map of ISSP). '• 

Oil examination of these maps, touether with the othcis ollered in 
evideiu-e, althouo'h they may differ in minor details, it will he found 
that they all auree in the fundamental ])rinciple of drawinu" the 
boundary line about the heads of all inlets from Portland Canal to the 
141st meridian of long'itude. Upon this point there i.s no disagree- 
ment. It was universally uiulerstood that such was the meanino- of 
the treaty, and the same method of demarkinLj- tlu> line was |)ursaed 
b}^ both the British and Canadian (TO\efiiments in their otlicial publi- 
cations. Great Britain thus openly and unreservedly proclaimed to 
the world the intention of the parties to the treaty of 1825 and the 
meanino- of its terms. 

Besides the maps and charts, w hicii were officially issued by the 
Imperial and Dominion Governments, every act of those oovernments 
up to a comparatively recent period was in accord with the meaning 
of the treaty as interpreted in their maps and charts. 

THE LEASE OF THE LISIERE BY THE HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY. 

The controversy known as "the affair of the Dryad'" has been dis- 
cussed in the Case of the United States,'' and its result, the leasing- of 
the limeve to the Hudson's Bay Company noted. The claim of the 
Hudson's Bay Companj^ for £22,150 had been presented and pressed 
with much earnestness by the British Government through its minister 
at St. Petersburg.' The Russian Govei-nment finally, in the latter 
part of the year 1838, directed the Russian American Company, us 
there seemed no further pretext for a\-oi(ling payment of the claim, 
to ''enter into friendly negotiations with the Hudson's Bay Company*' 
looking to\vards a settlement.'^' The Russian company at once took 
steps to compl}' with the directions of its government. 

Preliminary to official negotiations Baron Wrangell communicated 
privately with (lovernor Simpson of the Hudson's Bay Company 
suggesting a lease of the Uslere for a term of years to the British 
company in consideration of a tixed annual rental and the abandon- 
ment of the claim for damages in the affair of the Dryad.'-' To this 

« U. S. Counter Case, Atlas, No. 36. ^U. S. Case, App., pp. 285-307. 

^Ibid., No. 39. /Ibid., p. 308. 

<-Ibid., No. 43. f/Ibid., p. 311; U. S. CoimterCase, Api-., p. 4. 

f^pp. 77-80. 



LEASE OF LTSIERE BY HIDSon's HAY (OMPANY. 43 

pi'oposal ii favonihic reply was received from Mr. (afterwards Sir 
Georov) Simpson ami a meeting" ])etween the governors of the com- 
panies was arranued to complete the ao-recment/' The meetino- took 
])lac(> at Ilarn'ouro' al)()ut l-'chriiarv 1, 188!);'' and. on February •>, the 
lease was .vJLined hy the representatives of the c()ini)anies.' 

By the terms of this instrument '"the whoh^ mainlantl coast and 
Interior country belonging to Russia'' situated between Cape Spencer 
and latitude 54- 40' was leased for the term of ten years to the Hud- 
son's l>ay Company-, ''together with the free navigation and trade of 
the Waters of that Coast, and Interior Country situated to the South- 
ward and Eastward of a supposed line to l)e drawn from the said Cape 
Spencin- to Mount Fair Weather", The Russian American Company 
also included in the lease Fort Dionysius (termed Point Hightield in 
the instrument) situated on ^^'rang■ell Island, and further agreed not 
to trade in '"'any of the Bays, Inlets, Estuaries, rivers or lakes in that 
line of the Coast and in that Interior Coiintr}"". For this lease the 
Hudson's Bay Company was to pa}- 2000 seasoned land otter skins 
aniuialiy and to reliiKpiish the Di'yad claim."' The agreement con- 
tained certain other provisions, b}- which the British company was to 
furnish the Russian colonies with supplies at fixed charges. 

The chief reason for the Russian American Company entering into 
this arrangement was the pressure brought to bear upon it by the 
Imperial Government in demanding a settlement of the Dryad claim, 
which the British representatives at St. Petersburg had been urg-ing 
\igorousl3' upon Count Nessclrode.' That it secured certain com- 
mercial benefits was incidental. 

Th(> Hudson's Ba}' Compan}' apparently had two reasons for desir- 
ing the lease; (1) it secured thereby the rivers of the lislere in which 
it could trap and hunt the river beaver, which were found only in 
fresh water; •^" and {'!) it also obtained control of the entrances to the 
inland territory of (ireat Britain east of tlie line of demarcation. 

(1) The skins of the river beaver had in 1832 become the principal 
article of the fur trade in the southern part of the Russian possessions, 
and formed the unit of barter. In this particular trade the Americans 
in their vessels, and the l)ritish. operating from their recently estab- 

aU. S, Case, App., p. 311; U. S. Counter ^Ibid., pp. 150, 152. 

Case, App., p. 4. *'U. S. Counter Case, App., p. 35. 

f-U. y. Counter Case, p. 5. /Ibid., p. 48. 
(^^ British Case, App., p. 150. 



44 COUNTER CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

lishcd [)()st at Xaas. \vore the chief (•oin})etitors." In tlu' dcsiro to 
set'uiv these skins Mr. Oo-den in chari^c of tlie iSaas station atteni])ted 
to make an arrangement to sujij)ly tlie Kussians with "merchandise to 
be paid for with river Ijeavers.""'' It would appear to have been this 
particuhir tiade wiiich induced the Hudson's Bay Company to attempt 
the erection of a post on the Stikine River, which attempt l)rought 
about the atlair of the Dryad, for Baron Wrangell reported, before 
that event, that he particularly feared the nayigation of the rivers b}' 
tlie Hudson's Bay traders and hunters," for it is the region neighbor- 
ing upon the rivers which furnishes us with Ijeavers and not the 
coast.'''' A year later he reported that ''without doul)t Mr. Ogden's 
onl}" aim is to occupy the region where the natives living on the coast 
obtain river beavers, and then with their Canadians to hunt for these 
furs. It is in this manner that the Hudson's Bay Co. obtains the 
greater part of their furs wherever they have settlements, since they 
have almost no need whatever to trade with the natives,"'' The 
Russian governor proceeded to show how the Canadian trappers 
carried on their operations in taking the beaver, and asked ""Does 
not this mode of hunting resemble the ro))t)ery of a band of brigands 
who trample on the rights and property of the aborigines? If the 
Hudson's Ba}' Co, are allowed to trap river beavers in all the locali- 
ties where the coast Kolosh of our possessions obtained their furs 
for trade, then the Kolosh will be ])rought to the deepest misery."'^' 

To secure the right to hunt and trap in the rivers of the //.svVw was 
earnestly sought l)y the Hudson's Bay Company. 

(2) The Stikine Indians, liesides hunting in their river and streams, 
carried on with the tril)es further inland an extensive traflic in land 
furs, which they in turn sold to the white traders, and the same 
aiethods were employed by the Chilkats and other coast Indians,'' The 
mutual trading privileges granted by the treaties of 1824 and 1825 had 
expired, and in spite of the etiorts of the United States minister at St. 
Petersburg they had not been renewed.'' Thus the Russians had sub- 
stantially monopolized this ])rancli of the trade in these regions since 
February, 1835, when the British right of navigation and trathc within 
the Russian possessions ceased, 

^'U. S. Counter Ca?e, App., p. 1; U. S. Case, ''Ibid., p. 277. 

App., p. 2(j5. /Ibid., pp. 27o, 366. 

'^ U. 8. Counter Case, App., p. 2. fV. S. Case, pi>. ()!l-72. 

<^ U. S. Case, App. , p. 267. 



LEASE OF LISIERE BY HUDSon's KAY COMPANY. 45 

To obtain control of thi^s trade in land fur.s was, therefore, desii-ed 
by the Hudson's BaN' Company's factor at Naas, for he was thorouohl\' 
familiar with its profitable character. 

The lease of the mainland of the Russian possessions between Cape 
Spencer and 54- -to', was negotiated by Governor Simpson for these 
two reasons. That they were deemed of \'alue to the company is 
evident from the fact that in order to obtain them the Hudson's Bay 
Company was willinu- to withdraw a claim of i"22,150 and to pay 
annually for the monopoly of the trade 200<» land otter skins, equiva- 
lent to over -t'^oou." The valuable character of the rights secured is 
furthei- evidenced by the efforts of an American company, through 
the minister of the United States at St. Petersburg, to ol)tain a lease 
(that of the Hudson's Bay Company being about to expire) for which 
the Americans offered to pay tive per cent of their gross receipts from 
the trade.'' 

The United States asserts that these fact.-, conclusively establish that 
the Hudson's Ba}' Company considered all the inlets and estuaries of 
the mainland between Cape Spencer and 54^ 40' to be under Russian 
dominion, together with a consideral)le extent of the rivers emptying 
into the sea in that region. 

If Great Britain secured by the treaty of 1825 the heads of all the 
principal inlets and the rivers, except the estuary of the Stikine, as now 
claimed in the British Case, the Hudson's Bay Company would have had 
no object in leasing the llsiere^ much less in a))andoning a large claim 
and i)aying a considerable rental for the privilege. British subjects 
had the perpetual right to navigate the rivers crossing the Russian 
mainland; the}' could, therefore, enter these for the purpose of hunt- 
ing tlu^ I'iver beaver, since the habitat of the animal was fresh water 
streams and ponds, and all the fresh water of the coast was, according 
to the present British contention, within British territory. 

If Great Britain owned the heads of the main inlets along the coast, 
nothing was to be gained by leasing from Russia the promontoi-ies 
and pi-ecipitous outer shores of the mainland. The routes from the 
intcrioi-. by which the Coast Indians carried on their trade in furs 
with the tribes inland, connected with the heads of the larger inlets, 
the best example being at the extremity of the Lynn Canal where 
trails led across the mountains from the Chilkat and Chilkoot Inlets. 



"Britwh Case, App., p. 151. '- 1'. s. Counter Case. App.. p. .S4. 

2t)(;20 4 



46 COUNTER casp: (»f thp: united statp:8. 

The Hiidsoirs Buy Compaii}^, if the lino of demarcation contended 
for in the British Case was the correct one, would have gained no 
advantage by the lease that it did not alread}' possess. The reciprocal 
trade privilege had expired and it could have retained a monopoly 
of the trade in river l)eaver and land furs, without i)aying large sums 
for the exclusive right. That the company did not possess such 
monopol}^ except by title from Russia through the lease is apparent. 

It is asserted in the British Case" that the lease of the //.s/V/y- to the 
Hudson's Bay Company '"cannot be put forward as atfecting the 
boundary", that the "lease sets up no boundary", and that it is 
"impossible to detect the recognition of any sovereignty on the part 
of Russia, except over the portion of the territory given her by the 
Treaty ". To the last proposition the United States agrees, but from 
the others it dissents. It has already been shown that a boundary 
was set up in the lease, the southern boundary of 54^ 40' north 
latitude. It is submitted that the lease, interpreted by the acts and 
utterances of the parties, directly bears upon other portions of the 
line in controversy. 

Two years after Governor Simpson signed the lease at Hamburg- 
he visited the ceded territory. A narrative of his journey was pub- 
lished in 1S47, in which he mentioned the lease, and added: "Rus- 
sia, as the reader is, of course, aware possesses on the mainland, 
between lat. 54" 40' and lat. 60^, only a strip, never exceeding 
thirty miles in depth; and t/tiii strij), in the absence of such an arrange- 
m£7it as hax jasf heen mentioned^ renders the interior coantrtj coni- 
ixiratircly useless to England^\'' If Great Britain had i)ossessed the 
heads of the inlets. Governor Simpson would never have written the 
last clause of the foregoing sentence. 

The summer before the lease was executed the Russians made surveys 
of the mouth of the Chilkat River and of Taku Inlet.'' This region 
came within the leased territory and, therefore, the Russian American 
Company was prohibited from trading with the natives of that region. 
The chief factor of the Hudson's Bay Company in 1S40 complained to 
the Russian governor that he had been informed that the Indians in 
the neighborhood of Cross Sound had been selling their peltry to a 
Russian trading vessel, and that, if it was true, it was sufficient reason 
for the lessee to withhold its rental. This charge Governor Etholine 

«p. So. ''U. S. Case, App., p. 318. cU. S. Case, pp. SO, 81. 



LEASE OF LISIERE BY HUDSOn's BAY COMPANY. 47 

denied, l)ut stuted thut, tlirouo-h sonic of the tribes livino- on tiie 
islands, furs had been purchased which came orioinally from Chilkat, 
and that tiiese would l)c kept for the Hudson's Bay Company/' Later 
in the 3'ear, he wrote: "After June 1, there came only one canoe here 
from Chilcat, from which we boug-ht IS river beavers (sent to you 
with the hist steamer).'"' 

This action of the Russian governor was in compliance with the pro- 
visions of the lease, that the Russian American Company ''shall not 
have any conununication for the purposes of trade with any of the tribes 
of Indians occupying or inhabiting that Coast or Interior Country 
[described as between Cape Spencer and 54^ 40'J. And shall not receive 
in trade, barter or otherwise any of the Furs, Peltries or produce what- 
soever of the Mainland Coast or Interior Country' alread}^ described."^ 
If Chilkat was not within the leased " mainland coast and Interior 
country belonging to Russia," then the Russian American Company 
was not violating its covenants l)y trading through other Indians for 
the furs secured there; and, if Chief Factor Douglass had not. like- 
wise, understood the head of Lynn Canal to l)e within the Russian 
possessions, he would not have entered his complaint against the Rus- 
sian traders. Both parties to the lease thus recognized that it embraced 
that inlet and its branches. 

The agreement was renewed in 1S49, the Russian American Com- 
pany having secured imperial sanction for its continuance"' and was 
subsequentl}' extended by several renewals until the territory was 
transferred to the United States. 

In the year 1857 a select committee of the House of Commons con- 
ducted an investigation of the affairs of the Hudson's Bay Company. '^ 
During the sessions of the conunittee a map was produced, which was 
later pul)lished as part of the report of the committee (Map No. 35 in 
the Atlas accompanying this Counter Case). The territories occupiinl 
l)y the company were an essential part of the investigation, and this 
map was referred to and relied upon constantly. It distinctly shows 
the extent of the lislere leased from Russia, the boundary line l)eing 
drawn about all the inlets and approximately ten marine leagues from 
their heads. 

" U. S. Counter Cage, App., p. 10. '' V . S. Counter Case, Ai^j)., pp. 12-14. 
'^Ibicl., p. 12. ' Il)i(l., p. 3(i. 

<• British Case, App. p. 150. 



48 COUNTER CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

The lease and the leased territory were investigated l)y the com- 
mittee and the evidence in regard to them was published as part of 
the report made to the House of Commons. John Rae, Esq., one of 
the witnesses ))efore the committee, stated that the ''strip of land" 
leased was shown on the charts "running aU)ng the shore."" Sir 
George Simpson was asked: ''Besides your own territory, 1 think 
3'ou administer a portion of the territory which belongs to Russia, 
under some arrangement with the Russian company?". To wiiich 
question he replied: "There is a margin of coast marked yellow in 
the map from 54^ 40' up to Cross Sound, which we have rented from 
the Russian American Company for a term of years.'"' In response 
to another question he replied: "The British territory runs along- 
inland from the coast about 30 miles; the Russian territory runs 
along the coast; we have the right of navigation through the rivers 
to hunt the interior country."' It is apparent that Sir George 
Simpson, who had visited the region and was thoroughly familiar 
with its topography, believed that the only way to reach the British 
territory lying behiiid the Jislert'^ was by the rivers. 

The lease, which had been extended from time to time, was to expire 
May 31, 18(57.'' In ^Nlarch the Russian American Company made a 
report upon the subject to its government.' By this report it appears 
that the minister of the United States at St. Petersburg, acting on 
l)ehalf of a Californian company, had proposed to obtain the grant of 
exclusive tishing, hunting and trading within certain limits. This 
area included Lynn Canal and the region iwrth of it "to the boundary 
l)etween Russian and English possessions." '' The territory desired ])y 
the American company, the report stated, was, with the exception of 
the islands, "exactly that which is now leased to the Hudson's Ba}- 
Company." '' It is apparent, and there is no evidence to the contrary, 
that all parties to the lease fully understood that the Iwundary line of 
the lislere extended around all the inlets and indentations of the coast, 
and that for over twenty-tive years tii(\v acted in accord with that 
understanding. 

But there is even stronger proof that the Hudson's Bay Company 
considered all the inlets within Russian domain. Every year during 

" U. S. Counter Uase, App., p. 87. '' Ibid., p. 34. 

Mbid., p. ;«. flbid., p. 8:?. 

<Ibid., pp. 39,44. 



LEASE OF LISIEKK HY HUDSOn's HAY COMPANY. 49 

the latter years of the K'ase the tra(lin*i" vessels of the coiiipany iiuide 
three or four visits to Taku, Lynn Canal and ("iiilkat. AN'hcn the 
United States came into possession of the rej^ion under the treaty of 
1867, the company ceased its operations, withdrew from the territory 
and sent out an agent to close all accounts with the natives/' If the 
Chilkat, Chilkoot and Taku Inlets, the great highways of trade into the 
interior, had been, as Great Britain now claims them to ))e, within the 
British possessions, the Hudson's Bay Company would never have 
abandoned them, but would have taken steps for their permanent 
occupation. 

The British Case, anticipating that the events in connection with 
the lease and occupation by the Hudson's Bay Compan^^ of the lisiere 
under that instrument could be employed as evidence to sulxstantiate 
the position of the United States, has endeavored to weaken their 
force by declaring that the Hudson's Bay Company was not, '' during 
the period in question, in any sense a representative of the British 
Government, and no action of the Compan}' could possibly attect the 
question at issue." "^ 

From this declaration in regard to the materiality of evidence relat- 
ing to the lease of the lisiere^ the United States dissents; and atiirms 
that such evidence is material, not only because it shows the interpre- 
tation placed upon the treaty by the party most in interest, but because 
west of the Rocky Mountains the company was the de facto govern- 
ment and, therefore, the agent and representative of Great Britain 
upon the Pacific coast. 

It has been shown iii the Case of the United States that the Hudson's 
Bay Company was substantially the directing power in the negotia- 
tions which related to the boundary and which resulted in Articles 
III and IV of the treaty, of 1.S25; and the proof of this fact has been 
materially strengthened l)y the additional correspondence pul)lished. 
for the tirst time, in the British Case. 

Mr. \i\ M. Martin, whose work on the Hudson's Bay Company was 
])ublished in 1S41), stated that the company "materially aided Mr. 
Cunning in 1S2."). in the restriction of the Russians to their present 
northeiMi territories"; and that but for it "(Jreat Britain would prob- 
ably have been shut out from the Pacific" through the operation of 

'''U. S. Counter Case, App., p. 22S. i> British Cnse, p. ST. 



50 COUNTER CASE OF THE I'NITED STATES. 

the treaty of 1^'2-i between the United IStutes and Russia." It has 
been shown'' that Mr. Canning was inditt'erent to the deHniitation of 
the boimdarv. and that it was the Hudson's Bay Company which was 
the active force in urging British intei'ests in this particuUir. 

In all the vast area, lying westward of Hudson's Bay and extending 
from the Columbia Kiver to the Arctic Ocean, the Hudson's Bay Com- 
pany was the only representative of British sovereignty. Lieutenant 
Colonel Scott in 1807 in reporting on the Indian policv of the com- 
pany declared: '•'There is not a regular soldier in all British Columbia 
(excepting marines on shipboard and at Esquimalt ).'''' Throughout 
the entire region the government was in the hands of the governor 
of the company and a council composed of its chief factors'' who.made 
ordinances and directed the. territorial atfairs.'^ Justice was adminisj 
tered in accordance with the laws of England by the factors, whose 
commission as such was " undeistood to answer the purpose of a com- 
mission as magistrates.''''^ Over the Indians of those territories the 
company exercised absolute authority, arresting and punishing 
offenders. f' These facts were brought out in the investigation con- 
ducted by the select committee in 1857. And, knowing that the com- 
pan}' had been the onh^ representative of British sovereignty in 
"those extensive regions, whether in Rupert's Land or in the Indian 
Territory,'' the committee declared it to ])e its opinion that the 
privileges of the Hudson's Bay Company should l)e continued, the 
primary consideration lieing, "the great importance to the more 
peopled ]iortions of British North America t//<if hi a: and order sJiouJd, 
a^ far UH possthle^he 'inalntalned in tliese terrItoru'i<.'' '' In fact the 
region west of the Rocky INIountains was known in 1823 as the 
'"'jjoKscM/'o/t-s of the North-West Company"' and was, in 1854, desig- 
nated l)v the British Foreign Office ^''j^ossessums of the Hudson's Bay 
Company."' 

« U. S. Counter Case, A pp., p. 47, also p. 48. 

bU.fi. Case, p. 59. 

<U. S. Case, App., p. ^A^^(). 

''U. S. Counter Case, App., p]>. o7, 40. 

^Ibid., p. 41. 

./"Il)i(l., i>p. 88, 42, 45. 

f/lliid., p. 38; U. S. Case, App., p. 850. 

''V. S. Counter Case, App., p. 'M\ 

> Britisli Case, Atlas, No. 10. 

.? U. S. Counter Case, App., p. 18. 



LEASE OF LISIEKE liY HUDSON's HAY COMl'ANV. 51 

Jlaviny t'i)r a lono- period had no otlior oliieials in its liuiian terri- 
tories than the factors of the Hudson's Ba}' Company, having- main- 
tained British rule over the aborigines through that company, and 
having-, in fact, delegated to it sovereign rights or at least permitted 
their exercise in the preservation of "law and order", the British 
Government cannot now, it is su])mitted, declare that the compan\' 
was in no sense its representative. Having secured the henetits of 
such relationship, it is too late to repudiate the company's aets and to 
deny its public character. 

At the time when the lease was in contemplation the British Gov- 
irmnent was earnestly pressing- for the payment of the Dryad claim, 
and must have been in constant communication with the representa- 
tives of the Hudson's Bay Company in London. The correspondence 
between the Foreign Othce and Governor Pell}', which is produced in 
the British Case, appears to end in February, 1S36," although the 
matter was a subject of discussion at St. Petersburg- throughout the 
two succeeding years. ^ It cannot be doubted that the British Gov- 
eriuuent was fully cognizant of the proposed lease, and gave its assent 
to its execution by the Hudson's Bay Company. 

The company', dependent for its privileges upon the will of the 
British Government, would not have entered into an agreement to 
obtain control of the territory of another power without ol)taining the 
detinite assent of Her Majesty's Government to such a course, espe- 
cially when such action might involve the political relations of the two 
powers. Nor would it have entered into such an agreement, which 
was clearly ultra vires, without tirst securing governmeutal sanction. 
The lease, furthermore, involved the settlement of a claim in the 
hands of the minister of Great Britafn at St. Petersburg, and the For- 
eign OtKce nuist have been notitied of the proposed method of its 
settlement. The governors of the two companies also arranged to 
meet by reporting to their res])ective eml)assies in Berlin.' 

The United States submits that the presumption that the l>ritish 
Government gave its assent to the lease, is too strong to l)e dismissed 
by the statement made in the P)ritish Case that "there is no evidenre 
that Great Britain either approved or disai)proved the lease."'' In 
confirmation of the conclusion, whicli nuist be reached from the 

"British Case, App., p. 158. 'U. S. Counter Case, Ajip.. p. ."i. 

'>U. 8. Case, App., pp. 2H2-307. '' Britisli Case, p. 87. 



52 COUNTER CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

known relations oxistino- Ix'twtMMi the British Government and the 
Hudson's Ba}' Conipan}-. Mr. K. M. .Martin states that, ''after nego- 
tiations between the two goverinnents, and the two chartered Com- 
panies, it was agreed in 1839 that from 1st June, 1840, the Hudson's 
Bay Compan}' should enjoy for ten years the exclusive use of the 
continent as>igned to Russia by Mr. Canning in 1825,"" 

]Mr. Martin, in his book, was defending the Hudson's Bay Com])an3^ 
from the numerous attacks which were in 1848 being made upon it. 
He undoubtedly had ever}" facility offered him to confirm his state- 
ments. On this account, his assertion carries the added weight of 
being to all intents endorsed by the company" itself. 

In any e\'cnt, the subsequent course of the British Govermiient in 
ofJering no o])jection to the lease, and in recognizing the mutual 
interests of the two companies by agreeing with Russia in 1854 to 
preserve neutrality on the Northwest Coast* constituted a substantial 
confirmation of the lease, which described the Russian possessions as 
extending south as far as 54- 40' and comprising not only the mainland 
coast but the "Interior countr}' " as w^ell. 

Moreover, as has been stated, a map showing the Russian territor}^ 
was before the select conunittee of the House of Coumions, and that 
territor}' was pointed out by witnesses. The mtip was published with 
the report. In attendance upon that investigation was Honorable 
William H. Draper, Chief Justice of the Court of Conmion Pleas of 
Upper Canada.' He had been sent to London l\v the Canadian Gov- 
ernment to watch the investigation. Thus Itoth Great Britain and 
Canada were fully notified of the interpretation placed upon the treaty 
by the Hudson's Bay Company. Yet the following year'' the company 
was permitted to renew the lease without protest or objection by cither 
the British or the Canadian (jovernment as to the extent of the 
Russian territory and the cours(> of the Ijoundary around the inlets. 

The United States, therefore, contends that the Hudson's Bay 
Compan}', being from the first the party in interest in the fixation 
of the boundary and the best informed as to the region, was the 
most competent British authority to interpret the meaning of the 
treaty; that the admissions made by that company in the lease and in 
its interpretation were made by the only representative of the Brit- 

«U. S. Counter Case, App., p. 47. 'Ibid., p. 45. 

Hbid., p. 18. ''British Case, p. 87. 



RUSSIAN OCCUPATION. 53 

ish Government on the Pacific Coast; that the contents of the h^ase 
were known to that ooyernnient at the time of its inception: that 
the interpretation of it b}- the conti'actin*i' parties in regard to the 
territory h^ased was brouoht to the knowledge of both tlie British 
and Canadian Governments b}- the map and evidence published by 
the House of Commons; and that Great Britain, having failed to 
reject such interpretation at the time and having permitted it to be 
made public without reservation, must ))e deemed to have conceded 
its correctness. 

RUSSIAN OCCUPATION. 

The positive and strong proofs of the occujxition and sovereignty 
exercised b}' Russia between 1825 and 1807 over the lisien., submitted 
in the Case of the United States, would seem to make it unnecessary 
to add thereto further evidence, but for the doubt sought to ])e thrown 
upon such occupation and sovereign acts in the British Case." 

It is suggested that no more conclusive proof could be produced to 
establish the dominion of Russia over the lis lere than the lease which 
was accepted by the Hudson's Ba^^ Company. It lias already been 
shown that the limits of the llslere were definitely established befoi-e 
the British parliamentary committee in 1857, and that the operation* 
of the Hudson's Bay Company under the lease extended to the inlets 
of the maiidand and especialh' to the head of Lymi Canal. A furth(n- 
proof of this latter fact is to 1)e found in the report of the Ogilvie 
Canadian surveying party of 1887 and the depositions of J. J. Healy, 
United States Deputy Collector, and others.* From these it appears 
that Ogilvie found it difficult to induce the Chilkat Indians to trans- 
port his party across the mountain passes, because of the ill-feeling 
agiiinst the British on account of the killing of some of the tri])e hy 
the Hudson's Bay Company during the time of their trading opera- 
tions in that vicinity. 

Reference was made in the'Case of the United States to the practice 
of Russia in conferring upon the native chiefs who signalized their 
loyalty to that government silver ])adges or medals, with such inscrip- 
tions as ■'Allies of Russia."'* Three of these medals which were pre- 
sented by the Russian Government to tlu^ head chief of the Chilkat 
tribe, and which have descended through his family and are now the 

^'British Case, p. 85. <U. S. Case, p. 74. 

f'U. 8. Counter Case, App.. pp. 21t5, L'l'S, l';!4. 



54 countp:r case of the united states. 

property of a Chief re.sident at Klukwan, have been oljtaincd and 
photographic reproductions of thcin will l)efound in the Appendix to 
this Counter Case/' 

In contirniation of the authoi'it}' exercised over the inha))itants on 
the Russian mainland, even during the lease, the statement of Sir 
Georo-e Simpson is herewith submitted/' He narrates that in 1841. as 
his vessel approached Fort Wraniicll, he saw the Russian and British 
flags li3'ing at half-mast fi'om the Hudson's Bay Post, and in landing 
he found that the chief trader, Mr. McLoughlin, had been killed by a 
Canadian in a drunken row, and that the fort was beseiged by two 
thousand Indians. He was of the opinion that Canadian criminal 
jurisdiction did not extend to the leased Russian territory, and he 
decided to carry the murderer to Sitka, although the Russians had no 
court of oi'iminal jurisdiction in America. He also assembled the 
native chiefs and warned them that for any overt acts of hostility 
•"they would be most severely punished l)otii by the Russians and by 
ourselves." 

The discovery of gold placers on the Stikine River in 1S62 led to a 
great influx of adventurers, and the Russian Government became 
ahirmed lest it might lead to the loss of its territor}- in that region, 
the newspapers at Victoria. B. C, claiming that the mouth of that 
river should be held by Great Britain in the interest of the miners. 
An investigation by the Russian Government developed the fact that 
the gold fields were "not less than 165 Italian miles from the mouth 
of the Stikine, far l)evond the Russian possessions which extend onlv 
30 miles (52^ versts) from the shore.'" It was decided that th(> best 
wiiy to protect the Russian territory was to renew the lease to the 
Hudson's Bay Company, a question then pending; and this was 
accordingly done.' 

These facts, in rel)uttal of the assertions in the British Case, show 
that Russia exercised control over the native tribes on the mainland, 
that it exercised and was accorded jurisdiction by the British over the 
leased territory, and that it knew the extent of that territory and was 
prepared to enforce its authority therein. Taken in connection with 
the evidence sul)mitted in the Case of tht> United States, it is conclu- 
sively established that for fort3'-two years after the treat}^ of 1825 

« U. S. Counter Case, Apji., faciiijr p. 214. • Iliiil., App.. pp. 27-31. 

'> Ibid., pp. 35-36. 



PROPOSED SURVEY (»K 1ST2-1S74. 55 

Kussia, iiiulcr its intorpivtatioii of that treaty, lu'lcl uiKli.si)uted sovcr- 
oioiity on the mainland which it had publicly' deniai'ked upon its official 
maps, and wliicii it transt'envd witli an unim})aired title to th(> United 
States in 1867. 

THE PROPOSED BOUNDARY SURVEY OF 1872-1874. 

The British Case devotes considerable attention to the correspond- 
ence which took place ])etween 1872 and 1878 respecting a suggested 
siirve}' of the lioundary from the head of Portland Canal to mount St. 
Elias and thence to the Arctic Ocean. The object had in view in dis- 
cussing this cori'espondence seems to have been to show ''the unwill- 
ingness" or '* failure of the United States Congress to provide for 
[the] Survey."" It is suggested, however, that facts much more 
pertinent to the issues before the Tribunal are estal)lished by this 
correspondence. 

It conclusively discloses the fact that, during the period named, there 
was no controversy between the two (irovernments as to the interpre- 
tation of the treaty of 18:^5, nor as to the general course which the 
boundary line should follow. The Legislative Assembh' of British 
Columbia of 1872, w^hich initiated the suggestion, asked the Dominion 
Government "to have the Iwundary line properly laid down."'' The 
action of the succeeding Legislative Assembly of 1874 (which is 
omitted from the correspondence in the British Case) is more specific 
as to the line that it desired to have demarked, which it descril)ed as 
■•the boundary of the ;]<> mile V)elt of American territory running 
along a part of the seaboard." It again urged upon the Dominion 
Government the necessity of having "the said boundary estal)lished 
and detined." '■ The Privy Council of the Dominion of Canadti and 
the Governor General approved of the action of the Legislative 
Assembly, and askcnl the British (iovernnient "to take the neccssai'V 
steps to have the l)oundarv determined and mai'ked :" and the British 
minister in Washington was instructed to bring the matter to the 
attention of the (loveriunent of the United States.'' 

Accordingly he in()uired of the Secretary of State if his Govcrnincnt 
would be willing to agree to tlu^ ap])()intint'nt of a Connnission "for 
the purpose of detining the boundarj' line between Alaska and British 

" Britii^li Cas^e, p. 2it. '• V. S. Counter Case, j). 50. 

'j Britii^li Case, Api).. p. I(i2. '' Briti.-^li Case, App.. j). 1(54. 



5() COrNTKK CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

Columljiu.*' The Secrctiirv "was perfectly satistied of tlie expediency 
of such a measure," but expressed some doubt, for reasons o-iven, as to 
whether Cong-ress would make the necessary appr()i)riati(»ii. But on 
a second call the minister learned that the President was so impressed 
with the advantag-e "of having- the boundary line laid down at once,'^ 
that he would reconunend favorable action on the part of Congress/' 

In his next annual message President (irant referred to the happy 
result of the arbitration which adjusted the water ])<)undary from the 
40th parallel, and said "'the award leaves us, for the first time in the 
histor}' of the United States as a nation, without a question of disputed 
boundary between our territory and the possessions of Great Britain 
on this Continent." He then referred to the difficulties attending '"the 
determination of our admitted line of boundary" after occupation and 
settlement, and in view of the sparsely occupied condition of Alaska, 
he reconunended Congress to provide for a joint Conmiission to deter- 
mine the line between that territory and British Columbia.'' 

In no part of the correspondence is there any indication of the 
existence of a controversy over the terms of the treaty, l)ut on both 
sides it was agreed that it was desirable to have the line laid down 
and marked by a joint survey and this fact seems to be recognized in 
the British Case. There was, however, a further fact established by 
the correspondence of special significance in the determination of the 
questions submitted to the Tribunal — to wit, certain points were 
approximately indicated through w^hich the boundary line should be 
drawn l)etween the head of Portland Canal and mount St. Elias. 

After the President's message had been sent to Congress and a bill 
introduced to carry out his recommendation, the British Minister 
called upon the Secretary of State and was informed by him that the 
subject of the joint survey had been under investigation by the engi- 
neer department, and it had been found that for the United States 
alone it would cost one million and a half of dollars, and would require 
ten years of labor; and he feared that Congress would not authorize 
such an expenditure. Under the circumstances it was believed that it 
would be (juite sufficient ''to decid(> upon some particular points to be 
marked," and these it was suggested "should be the head of the Port- 
land Canal, the points where the boundary line crosses the rivers 
Skoot, Stickeen, Taku, Islecat [Chilkoot] and Chilkaht, Mount 

a British Case, App., pp. 104-5. ' &TJ. S. Counter Case, p. 145. 



PHOI'OSED SUKVEY OF 1ST2-18T4. 57 

St. Elias. iind * '• " the rivors Yukon iind Porcupinp.''' The 
doterniiiKition of these points alone it was estimated would occupy 
four 3ears of time and cost the United States a lialf a million of 
dollars." 

These suoo-estions were accepted M' the British ^Minister without 
dissent, forwarded by him to London and thence communicated to the 
Dominion Government, with instructions to report upon the cost of 
the last proposed survey. The Privy Council took it under considera- 
tion and referred it for an estimate to Captain D. R. Cameron, the 
commissioner eno-aoed in the survey of the boundary along the 4-!>th 
parallel, transmitting to him the American proposition, including the 
points to be tixc^l and a list of the rivers named.'' The subject also 
engaged the attention of the Dominion Surveyor Genei'al. J. S. Den- 
nis, who, in a report to the Minister of the Interior, emunerated the 
rivers which were to be crossed b}^ the l)oundary, giving the list which 
the British Minister had furnished.' Later the Se(,'retar3^ of State 
sent to the British minister a written report on the subject, prepared 
by Gen. Humphreys. Chief of Engineers, in which were enumerated 
the "'Staken, Taku, Chilkat, the Alsekh rivers," on which were to be 
fixed ""'the points of intersection with boundary line;" and this latter 
was also sent to Cai)tain Cameron.'' as well as to the Foreign Otiice in 
London.' In making his report in 1875, Captain Cameron included 
this list of rivers on which the l)oundarv was to be marked. The next 
year the Prime Minister of Canada in a report to the Privy Council 
mentioned the rivers named b}' the Secretary of State as the particular 
})<)ints whereon the boundary line should be marked;' and a year 
later, 1877. the Privy Council, in a Minute, repeated the list.-^ 

Neither the British representative at Washington, the Foreign nor 
Colonial Otiice in London, the Prime Minister of Canada, its Privy 
Council, nor the Surveyor (Jeneral entered any dissent from the 
proposition that the boundary line when laid down was to cross the 
rivers named. The British C:ise (piotes a sentence from Captain 
Cameron's report in which he stated that the Government of Canada 
"expect the terms of the Treaty to be fully and strictly carried out. '"•' 

« British Case, App., p .168. ''Ibid., p. 189. 

''Il)id., p. 17.3. /British Cast-, App., p. 2;«. 

' Il>i<l., i>. 178. r/ British Ca.-^e. p. .'30. 

'' r. S. Counter Case, App., pp. 50-51. 



58 COUNTER CASK OF THE UNITED STATES. 

It is not clear, from the context, to what he refers. He was called 
upon for an estimate of the cost and time required for the surve}', not 
to construe the treaty, and whatever may have been his meaning, he 
did not dissent from the enumeration of the rivers, but inchidt'd them 
in his report. 

Other ofhcial declarations are found in the correspondence under 
review, which show that the rivers upon which the boundary was to 
be mai'ked. were streams whicli liad their orig-in in British territory 
and which reached the ocean in American territor3\ In a despatch of 
the British minister at Washington to the Secretary of Foreign Atlairs 
in London, he reported an interview with the Secrc^tary of State in 
which he recalled the proposition made by the latter that if the whole 
surve}^ could not be made, "the points where the territories met could 
be fixed on the rlver-s rohlch run tJirom/h hoth of tJniii.^^" This propo- 
sition received the approval of the British minister,'' and had the con- 
currence of the Canadian Prime Minister and Priv}^ Council.' In 
considering the subject, the Survej'or General of Canada referred "to 
the mouths of the rivers in question as points from which the necessary 
triangulation surveys should commence, in order to determine the ten 
marine leagues back."'' 

This correspondence furnishes further evidence of the interpreta- 
tion i)laced ui)<)n the treaty b}' the British and Canadian authorities 
respecting the boundary line from Portland Canal to mount St. Elias. 
The discussion which arose over the case of Peter Martin, an Ameri- 
can who was being conveyed as a prisoner from British territory, 
caused an examination to be made 1)y the British Government of the 
question whether Article VI of the treaty of 1825 was still in force. 
By the terms of that article British subjects had forever "the right 
of navigating * * ''■ all the rivers and streams, which, in their 
course towards the Pacific Ocean, may cross the line of demarcation 
upon the coast described in article three of the presiMit convention." 
By the last clause of Article VI of the treaty of cession of 1867, Russia 
sought to dis-annul Article VI of the Anglo-Kussian treaty of 1825. 
Article XXVI of the British-American treaty of 1871 gave to the 
citizens of the United States the free navigation of the St. Law- 
rence, and declared the Yukon, Porcupine and Stikine free and open, 

"British Case, App., p. 183. ^British Case, App., pp. 188, 190. 

''U. y. Counter Case, App., p. 67. <^Ibid., p. 178. 



rK()I'()SP:u SUKVEY of 1,^T2-1S74. 59 

for the purposos of coimnerce, to the citizens aiul su))jeots of both 
nations. Tlie hiw otHeers of the British Crown hokl that the 
Stikine was open for the purposes of comnierce only, and that in 
accepting- Article XXVI of the treat}'^ of 1871, Great Britain had lost 
for her siihjects the rioht, secured by Article VI of the treaty of 
1825, of ""the free and unrestricted navioation of the rivers flowing 
throuo'h that territory [Alaska] to the sea"". It is to be noted that 
the crown lawyers assumed that these rivers flowed through American 
territory." This opinion was bitterly attacked by Canadian statesmen 
and jurists as surrendering valuable rights. Honorable Edward 
Blake, then Minister of Justice, in a report to the Canadian Privy 
Council in ISTT, stated that the "so-called concession by the United 
States was in fact a concession by Great Britain to the former country, 
which gave nothing and got ever3'thing" ; and hv added that he had 
never been able to form a plausible conjecture as to the I'eason for the 
action of the British Commissioners", who negotiated the treaty of 
1871." His successor as Minister of Justice, in a further report on 
-the same subject, after quoting the opinion of the British law ofhcers, 
stated that it was "the painful conclusion that our rights existing at 
the time of the treaty of Washington [1871J have been lost through 
that treaty."'^ 

In 1879 the opinion of the law officers was made the subject of an 
animated debate in the Canadian Parliament. The member from 
Victoria. British Colum})ia, referred to the loss of British rights in 
Alaska hy the treaty of 1871, and pointed out that " under the con- 
vention of 1825 with Russia, we had the I'ight to navigate all the 
/v'/v/'.v that ran out of our territory and tJt rough Ahcsh/, but by the act 
of Russia in 1807, in transferring the territory of Alaska to the Ignited 
States, we lost the right of navigating the rivers. This was because 
the negotiators of the tri'aty of 1871 neglected their duty." Honor- 
able David Mills, late Minister of Justice in the cabinet of Sir Wilfrid 
Laurier. pointed out the effect of the treaty of 1825, "which gave to 
Russia a narrow strip of territory upon the coast south of Mt. St. 
Elias, extending as far south as Portland Canal, u])oii tiie cxiucss con- 
dition that all the rl i'crs ji owing throng Ji this Iiu.s.sian trrritorij should 
be open to navigation by Great Britain, for all purposes whatsoiner"; 
and, citing the opinion of the law officers of the crown, he said that, 

"British Case, App., p. 211. '>Ihid., p. 233. 



60 COl'NTER CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

*' it' the people on the western coa^t were now in u worse position than 
they were before, it was due to the negotiations whieh took phice at 
Washino-ton *'. Sir .John A. Maedonald, the Prime ^linister. while 
concedino- that there existed two opinions on the subject, stated that 
the best international lawyers in Enohind, Mr. Montague Bernard and 
Lord Tenterden, " were united in the opinion that, l)y the transfer of 
Alaska, the effect of the treaty of 182.5 was gone"." 

It is submitted that the correspondence of the two governments 
between 1873 and 1878, estal)lishes, 1st, that there was no controversy 
as to the interpretation of the treaty of 1825, and that all that was 
contemplated at that period was a survey to tix and mark the boundary 
line; 2nd, that it was conceded that this line should cross the rivers 
Iskoot, Stikine, Taku, Chilkoot, Chilkat and Alsekh; 8rd, that the 
rivers and streams which had their origin in British territory between 
Portland Canal and mount 8t. Elias and emptied into the ocean passed 
througli American territory before reaching the sea; and, 1th, that, 
when it was decided that the right to navigate these rivers and • 
streams had been lost to British subjects, it was regarded as a serious 
injury to British interests. It is hardly necessary to point out how 
inconsistent are these facts with the contention in the British Case, 
that all these rivers and streams, except the Stikine, flow entirely 
through British territory, and empty into the sea within British 
waters. Mr. Alexander Begg, the British Columbian historian, who 
is recognized by Canadians as a careful student of the boundary 
(juestion and who has written much upon it,'' states that he has no 
doul)t that, if the Iwundary had been surveyed at the time under 
consideration, the line would have been drawn on the rivers named, 
in accordance with the proposition of the United States. Mr. Gos- 
nell, author of the British Colum])ia Year Book, after (juoting the 
proposition of the United States (iovernment in 1873 as to marking 
the line upon the rivers named, adds, "the Canadian Govermnent was 
quite willing to accept the proposition." ' 

The reason why the Congress of the United States failed at th(^ time 
to make the apjjropriation necessary for the survey is fully set forth 
in the correspondence, and it seems to have been properly under- 
stood in Canada. Honorable Richard W. Scott, at that time Commis- 
sioner of Crown Lands and now Secretary of State in the Canadian 

'I U. S. Counter Case, App., pp. 164-166. 'Ibid., p. 201. 

''Il)id., p. 210. 



THE BOUNDARY ON THE STIKINE. 61 

Cabinet, stutod in tlio Senate in 1892 that ''the only reason why it 
[the line] was not setthnl twenty years ago was that the expense was 
too heavy. The United States at one time ])roi)osed a vote for the 
purpose and it was then said that it would cost al)Out two million 
dollars. The population was small, and thev did not feel warranted 
at the time in making that particular survey." " It will be shown 
later that remissness as to a joint survey cannot l)e charged against 
the United States alone. 

THE BOUNDARY ON THE STIKINE. 

The Stikine River is the only stream crossing the //'siv/-r which is 
navigable for any considerable distance b}^ steam vessels, and since the 
cession it has been the chief water communication with the British 
possessions beyond the boundary. AVhile the correspondence l)etween 
the two governments initiated in 1872, respecting the joint survey, 
was in progress, various questions arose regarding the navigation of 
this river. These are treated at some length in the British Case, but 
not in such a wa}' as to greatly aid the Tribunal in determining the 
l)oundary in that region. A\'ith the latter object in view, it has been 
thought necessary to publish some of the documents found in the 
Canadian Sessional Paper No. 125 of 1870. and others pertinent to the 
subject.'^ 

It has been seen that in the proposed surve}' one of the points of 
the boundary to be marked was to be on the Stikine River. An 
examination of the papers produced in the British Case and those to 
be found in the Appendix to this Counter Case, will enable the Tri- 
t)unal to ascertain the views of the two governments, and of the 
^■arious authorities representing them, as to the point on the Stikine 
River at which it should be crossed by the international boundary. 
It is believed that the facts so established will materially assist the 
Tril)unal in tixing the course of the internatioiuil line between the 
head of Portland Canal and mount St. P^lias. 

RefereiKH' has been made to the questions which arose as to th(> 
navigation of the Stikine after the cession to the United States and up 
to the year 1874. - The local customs authorities of the United States 
at first held that the lower portion of th(> river was not o])en to British 
subjects, and a few years later the British customs officials sought to 

« U. S. Counter Case, App., p. I(i7. ^ Thirl., jip. ,\3-8fi. 

26626 o 



62 COUISITER CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

exclude Anierieaii vessels from the navio-ution of the upper part of 
the river, but when the questions reached the higher authorities, both 
governments promptly decided that the river was free throughout its 
whole extent to their citizens and subjects for commercial purposes/' 
That discussion is only useful at the present time to show that, in the 
minds of the officials of the two governments, the river flowed for a 
considerable distance through the territory of l)oth countries. 

The Stikine is navigable for river steamers for upwards of one 
hundred miles, and for light draught vessels and at a certain period 
of the year for a considerable distance further.'' From an early 
period its navigability and topograph}' became known. In 1833 Peter 
Ogden, the Hudson's Bay Company's agent, made a journey up the 
river for a considerable distance above the point Hxed by him as ten 
marine leagues from the ocean coast.'" In 1S3T the Russian Govern- 
ment made a surve}' of the river and published a map of it.'' In 
1867 a Hudson's Bay post existed presumably at the place selected 
by the company in 1833.'' In 1802 gold was discovered on the river 
above the boundary as marked by the Russian survey. In 1803 the 
Russian (xovernment dispatched a government vessel to investigate 
the facts as to the gold deposits, and a full survey of the river 
was made. This expedition was accompanied by Professor Blake 
of Yale University and his report and map were published bj' 
the United States in 1868.' From 1802 onward the locality was 
continuously visited by man}- hundreds of miners. '^ In 1872 extensive 
gold deposits were found in the Cassiar district, reached from the 
headwaters of the Stikine, and for successive 3'ears it was a popular 
mining resort. Sevei'al steamers were kept employed, carrying from 
two to three thousand passengers annually. In 1875 and 1S76 the 
jneld of gold exceeded $1,000,000 per year. The British authorities 
caused the river to be accurately surveyed at different dates. In 1808 
a survey was made l)y Professor Leach for the Hudson's Ba}' Com- 
pan}' to ascertain the boundary.'' In 1875 the entire river' including 

« U. S. Counter Case, App., pp. 53-t)l, 182. 
'' Iljid., p. 85; British Case, App., p. 228. 
* <'U. S. Case, Apj)., i)].. 272, 2S;5, :-!18. 
''Ibid, p. 514. 
' ll)i(l., p. ;Wi>. 

.'' See map in Atlas accompanj'ing this Counter Case, ^Map sheet No. 29. 
f/U. S. Connter Case, App., p. 28. 
/'Ibid., pp. 7o, 79. 



THE KOUNDAKY ON THE STIKINE. 63 

the Cussiai- District was surveyed for the British Cohiniljiun (io\ cni- 
iiuMit by (Tiistiivus A. Wrioht, a civil engineer, employed in the 
Cassiar mines, and a map of it was published at San Francisco b}^ the 
British consul." American and British officers likewise made jour- 
neys up the river and submitted reports upon its topography and 
geographical features. '' 

Notwithstanding the great traffic which had been carried on for 
several years on the river and the fre(|uent surveys and reports which 
had been made, the point where the international boundar}' crossed 
it had not as yet been marked by the joint action of the two govern- 
ments. Ogden, the agent of the Hudson's Ba}' Company, had fixed 
it for the purposes of his companj^; the Russian Government had 
marked it; in 18()8 a surve}' had been made and the line located by the 
Hudson's Bay Companj';^ and the local customs authorities of the 
two governments had from time to time sought to observe a conven- 
tional line.'' But as there was no uniformit}' in their attempts to mark 
the boundary, confusion and disputes arose. 

In 1875 the subject was brought to the attention of the two govern- 
ments through a report of the United States collector of customs of 
Alaska to the Treasury Department " that citizens of British Columbia 
had surve3'ed and laid out a town live or six miles below Boundary 
post,'' where the British Customs House was established on the Stikine 
River." The Secretary of State, in an interview with the British 
minister in Washington, informed him of the contents of the col- 
lector's report, and stated that American officers on the spot asserted 
that both the town site and the British custom house were within 
the territory of the United States, ''that is, within the ten marine 
leagues from the coast at w'hich the boundar}' should be," and ho sug- 
gested that the settlers should be called upon to suspend operations 
until the ((uestion of territory could be decided. 

Through th(; Foreign Office in London the matter was laid before 
the Canadian Government, and it became the subject of deliberation 
by the Privy Council of the Dominion. The result of its delilx'ra- 
tions was embodied in a report and made puldic. After referring to 
the terms of the treaty which required the line to follow the sununit 



(' U. S. Counter Case, App., pp. 76, 77, 78, 265. 

'' British Case, App., pp. 176, 185, 192; U. S. Counter Case, App., pp. 7(), 7S. 7!». 1(54. 

<■ U. S. Counter Case, App., pp. 7.3, 77. 

'' British Case, .\.pp., pp. 185, 192, 197; U. 8. Counter C&ae, .\pp., pp. 66, 70, 79. 

<" U. S. Counter Case, App., p. 66. 



04 rol'NTER CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

of tlic iiiouiituiiis. tho report said: "'The Stikine River inlcrsoots the 
Intcriiiitioiial Itoimdar}' in the vieiiiity of tiie 'uth deg-ree of north 
latitude:"" and it reconiniended that the true line should be accurately 
determined on the Stikine \vithout further delay, in view of the possi- 
ble increase in settlements along its banks. It therefore recom- 
mended that the United States Goveriuneiit be invited to join with, 
the British Government in tixing- the boundary at the single point 
indicated/' 

The following year a new case arose. One Choquette had estab- 
lished a trading post in the vicinity, and the United States collector 
gave him notice that he must pay duties on his goods or move his post 
beyond the American side of the boundary. He refused and appealed 
to the Canadian authorities for protection.'' 

The same year the case of Peter Martin occurred. While encamped 
on the banks of the Stikine, he pssaulted the guard in an attempt to 
escape, was overpowered, taken to Victoria, tried for the oli'ense, con- 
victed and imprisoned. Upon being informed of the facts, the Gov- 
ernment of the United States made a demand for his release.' 

These occurrences pressed upon the governments the advisability 
of at least agreeing upon a boundary on the Stikine. When the de- 
mand for the release of Martin was made, a surveyor, Joseph Hunter, 
was dispatched to the Stikine by the Canadian Government, was 
furnished with a copy of the treaty of 1825 and certain charts, and 
was instructed "to ascertain, with approximate accuracy, the l)ound- 
ary on the said river betAveen the Dominion ami the territory of 
Alaska.'"' 

When the British minister presented at \\'ashington the suggestion 
of the Privy Council for a survey of the Stikine, he was met Iw the 
offer to send an iMigineer on each side, who should agree to the best of 
theii- ability to a provisional boundary on the Stikine. On receipt of 
this i)roposal, the Privy Council reported that Hunter had already 
u)ade his surve}^ and asked that it n)ight I)e provisionallv accepted as 
to the boundary. ' 

A comparison of Hunter's map with the ma]) })ul)lislied by the Brit- 
ish Government in ISTO, known as Wright's Map'' (see Atlas accom- 

«U. S. Counter Case, App., i)p. 66-69. '' Ihiil., p. 224. 

^Ibid., App., pp. 69-71. ' ll)i-l., pp. 2.'!9-241. 

cBritit^li Case, Aj.p., pji. 198. .'U. S. Counter Case, App., pp. 76, 77, 78. 



THK HOnNDARV OX THK STIKIXE. 65 

puiiyino- this Counter C':is(\ Slioot No. 2!l) will .show that the point fixed 
l)y Iluntci" as the Woundai'v was some (listaiu-(> nearer the mouth than 
an\' point previously indicated hy any other authority, and likewise 
below the localities which had hitherto been in dispute. Major Wood, 
of the I'nited States Army, after a journey up the river, reported to 
the War Dejiartment that the Russian momuiient was at a point on 
the river !;>.") niilt^s from its mouth." Hunter's map shows the old 
Iludsoji's Bay post was more than sixty utiles above the mouth. His 
survey also shows that the point stated by the Canadian Privy Council 
in 1875 as the boundary line near the 57' was almost in conformity 
with a straig-ht line of ten marine leagues from the coast. 

Notwithstanding these facts, and with a full knowledg-e that the line 
tixed by Hunter was much below that indicated by the Privy Council of 
Canada and by other British authorities, the Government of the United 
States, with the spirit of conciliation which later marked its conduct 
in aoreeing to the provisional line at the head of Lynn Canal, con- 
sented to regard the point fixed i)v him as the temporary- t)oundary on 
the Stikine for customs and jurisdictional purposes, with the under- 
standing that it was not to be construed as atiecting the rights under 
the treaty.'^ This was done with the full knowledge on the part of 
the United States that its own officers, who had visited and were 
acquainted Avith the river topography, difl'ered from Hunter, and also 
that the Canadian Privy Council and Survevor General had indicated 
a line moi'e favorable to the United States. 

Mr. Hunter claimed to have found the point where the mountain 
range described in the treaty as "'parallel to the coast" touched the 
Stikine, This he fixed at a distance of 24.74 miles from tlie mouth or 
Kothsay Point, and fi'om the coast in a direct line 11>.18 miles.'' In 
this action he was in direct conflict with the United States Army 
officers who had \isited the riAcr'' and of the meml)ei's of the I'nited 
States Coast Survey who have examined and reported upon its topo- 
graphy. '^ Nevertheless, the fact reported l)y Hunter as to the moun- 
tain range has up to a very recent date l)een accepted by the Canadian 
authorities and wi'iters. For instance, the Executive Council of 
British Columbia, in 18S5, in the course of an exhaustive review of 

"U. S. Counter Case, App., p. 79. '' ('. 8. Counter Case, App., pp. 79, 80. 

'' U. S. Foreifrn Relatiouis, 1S7S, ]>. 34f). ' Ihid., p. 2ii.S; V. S. Ca.<ie, .\pp., p. 5.S.5. 

'British Ca.se, App., p. 2;W. 



(36 COUNTER CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

tlie houndciry question, stated that there was not '"the slio-htest 
uncertainty" as to where it crossed the Stikine. "The survey of 
Mr. Hunter, C. E., * * * conclusively establishes the coast line 
range of mountains at the crossing of the Stikine to be about "io miles 
from tlie sea." 

THE CORRESPONDENCE OF 1886. 

Following the arrangement as to the provisional line on the Stikine 
River in 1878, the British Case introduces the correspondence of 1886 
with a personal letter of Dr. W. H. Dall to Dr. (ieorge M. Dawson. 
It shows upon its face that it is part of a previous correspondence, 
not produced in the British Case. No record of it exists in the Office 
of the Coast Survey, and it has no special signiticance even if it had 
been clothed with official authority. The correspondence which 
passed between the two governments in 1886 was initiated by an 
instruction sent by the Secretary of State, Mr. Bayard, to the United 
States minister in London. The latter was informed that in the judg- 
ment of the President the time had come for an understanding looking 
to the establishment of the boundary line, and the minister, Mr. 
Phelps, was instructed to propose the appointment of an international 
commission for that purpose. 

Mr. Bayard dwelt at some length upon the difficulties which pre- 
sented themselves to the accurate demarcation of the line by monu- 
ments, especially in the mountainous section between the head of 
Portland Canal and mount St. Elias, and he seemed to favor a conven- 
tional line, which, while in substantial accord with the intent of the 
negotiators of the treaty, could be readily laid down b}' astronomical 
and topographical surveys. As the proposal was not acted upon, the 
correspondence has little present application, and its chief value toda}' 
is in the declaration made by Secretary Bayard that he '' was not aware 
that any question concerning the true location of the line so stipulated 
I in the treaty of 18:25] ever arose at any time between Great Britain 
and Russia })i-i()r to the cession of Alaska to the United States. " * * 
It is certain that no question has arisen since 18(;7 between the Gov- 
ernments of the United States and Great Britain in regard to this 
boundar3\'^ 

This declaration was connnunicated l>y Mr. Phel])s to Lord Salis- 
bury and received by him without dissent.'' It is true that some 

" U. S. Counter Case, App., jip. 181, 188. '■ Ibid., 25.3; U. S. Counter Case, App., 91. 
'> British Case, App., 249. 



TPK CORRESPONDENCE (»F I^k 67 

months later Lord Iddeslcioh, in sciulini;- to Mr, Phelps u Ciuuidiun 
otticial map which he had requested, called his attention to the boiind- 
arv line as marked on the Stikine River, which was hioher ii]) tiian 
that tixed by Hunter in 1ST7 and accepted as the provisional line, and 
entered a disavowal of the recognition of its correctness; but his note 
had no reference to the previous correspondence and did not in any 
way ({ualifv or dissent from it." The Iddleslejuh map is No. 32 in the 
Atlas of the British Case and is also shown in the comparative collec- 
tion of the Stikine River in the Atlas of this Counter Case. (Sheet 
No, '29). It was discussed in the correspondence between Lord Salis- 
bui-y and Mr. Choate, to which reference is here made.* The British 
Case concludes its review of this subject as follows: ""No survey was 
made as sug-o-ested by Mr. Phelps.''' This assertion calls for some 
tiualitication. 

Between the notes of Mr. Phelps and Lord Iddlesleigh some corre- 
spondence occurred which is printed in the Appendix to this Counter 
Case, and from which it is learned that the Canadian Government, 
while unwnlling- to agree to the appointment of a joint commission, 
was "prepared to take part in a preliminary investigation" or survey. 
The President thereupon recommended to Congress that an appro- 
priation be made for the purpose.'" On October, 1888, Congress voted 
the necessary funds to begin the survey, which was to be conducted 
under the general direction or approval of the Secretary of State. 
There is printed in the British Case a letter from the Superintendent 
of the United States Coast Survey addressed to the Canadian Minister 
of the Interior, in which the latter is informed of the action of Con- 
gress and of the plans being made by the superintendent for carrying 
out the proposed survey. He further stated that the object of the 
preliminary work was to collect such data as would enable the two 
govermiients to agree upon a treat}" establishing a Ijoundary, He 
then invited the Minister of tho Interior, to whom he had been 
referred as the proper official, to ariange the detail of the Canadian 
parties who would join oi' cooperate with those of the Coast Survey, 
All the correspondence which passed upon this subject between the 
two officers named has been obtained from the offic(> of the I'nited 
States Coast Survey and will be found in the Appendix to this Coun- 
ter Case. It will there be seen'' that the Minister of the Interior 

fi British Case, App., 255. clbid., 91-93. 

'' U. S. Counter Case, App., i:!4. 145t. '/Il.i.l.. 174-177. 



68 COUNTER CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

lU'kiiow It'dii'cd the receipt of the siiperinteiuh'iit's U'tter. stated tliat 
tht' mutter had l)een sul)niitted to his ooveriinieiit and was then iiiuU'i- 
consideration. With this letter the coriespondence ended, and the 
Canadian (jovernnient took no part in the survey, wliicii \\as eon- 
ducted by the United States alone. 

THE DALL-DAWSON DISCUSSION. 

What is termed the ""Dall-Dawson Conferences" has been given 
such importance in the British Case that it has been deemed proper to 
complete the correspondence which is there only partially produced. " 

The meeting- of these two scientists was brought about at the time 
of the sessions of the Atlantic Fisheries Connnission. The object has 
been so fully discussed by Ambasador Choate and the British Secre- 
taries for Foreign Affairs that a reference to that corres])onden('e* 
need only to be supplemented by two remarks. 

In Lord Lansdowne's despatch of August 18, 1902, reference is 
made to what a}){)eai's in the "Protocols of the Commission" during 
the Fisheries negotiations of 1888. His Lordship must have intended 
to refer to the minutes kept by the British members of that Commis- 
sion, as the officially signed Protocols of the Joint High Commission 
were communicated in full to the Senate of the United States at the 
time the Fisheries Convention was submitted to that body, and printed 
as an Executive Document (see S. Ex. Doc. 113, .5(»th Cong. pp. 117- 
120). An examination of these will show that no mention is made of 
the ''Dall-Dawson Conferences" or of the Alaskan boundary ques- 
tion. This fact confirms the position taken l)v the United States that 
the Fisheries Commission professed no authority to consider that ques- 
tion, and whatever was done by its members was purely- extra-official 
and was not intended to commit either government. 

It will l)e seen from the following extract that Dr. Dall fully under- 
stood the character and effect of his meeting with Dr. Dawson: "It 
was announced and agreed that the meeting was entirely informal; 
that neither party had any delegated powers whatever, and that its 
o))iect was sinq)ly the arrival at a consensus of opinion as to some rea- 
sonable and business-like way of settling upon a iini^ satisfactory to 
both countries, and the most practicable means of demarkating the 
line if one was accepted." It cannot seriously be claimed that what 
« C. S. Counter Case, App. pp. 94-113. '' Ibid., pp. 135, 150, 159. 



KECiPKociTY C()NFerp:ncp: of lW):i. 6D 

was said at such a iiuH'tint;- could bo rooardod as otlicial. or that any 
i^-oveninient would ado[)t such a method of niakiiiu' its position known 
upon so inii)oitant a question as a i)ouiuhiiv line, if it was held to l)e 
in dispute. 

THE RECIPROCITY CONFERENCE OF 1892. 

A brief reference is made in the liritish Case" to the reciprocity 
conference which was held in Washington in February 1892, but in 
view of the importance attached to it b\' the British Foreign Ofiice in 
the discussion with Mr. Choate. the subject seems to call for an explicit 
statement on the part of the Tnited States. The correspondence 
respecting- that conference will be found in the Appendix to this 
Counter Case/' 

It is asserted by Great Britain that a distinct statement of the Brit- 
ish (daims to the boundar^^ substantially as now presented, was made 
b}' the Canadian delegates at that conference. The correspondence 
shows that the main object had in view by the Dominion Government 
in holding the conference was to discuss commercial reciprocity, and 
that all other questions mentioned were of slight importance compared 
with that matter. The subject of the Alaskan boundary was presented, 
but from the same point of view as in 1872-8 and in 1886-S, to the 
effect that a marking of the line was desira])le; and out of the confer- 
ence grew the convention of July 22, 1892, providing for a prelimi- 
nary survey "'with a view to the ascertainment of the facts and data 
necessary to the permanent delimitation of said boundary line"; a 
survey similar to the one which had been considered in 1888, but in 
which Canada, though invited, failed to participate. From the Amer- 
ican reports of the conference it is manifest that there was no discus- 
sion of divergent views, and that •' no assertion was hinted at of a 
British claim to the heads of inlets or of any rights on Lynn Canal." 

But there is other evidence to establish this fact. The correspond- 
ence between Lord Salisbury and ]\Ir. Choate shows that when the sub- 
ject of the Alaskan ])oundary was under discussion in the .Joint High 
Commission at Qu(d)ec in 1898. a map was introduced by the British 
commissioners with the boundary drawn upon it, giving the Portland 
Canal peninsula and the heads of all the inlets to Canada: and that an 
American menil)ei' of tlie commission, who had also [participated in 



"p. 38. ^United States Counter Case, Ap pp. 114-123; 135, 151, 161. 



70 COUNTER CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

the oonfciviR'C of 1892. stated that tlie view then advanced "was the 
first distinct statement of the British chiini." 'I'he oidy (lualitioation 
made by the British commissioners upon this statement was that the 
claim Avas put foi'th in the insti'uctions to the British connnissioners. 
copies of which had been sent to the Secretary of State of the United 
States on August 1, 1898.* 

A further })roof from British sources that no divei'gence of views 
respecting the interpretation of the treaty of 1825 was developed in 
the reciprocity conference of February 1892, is to be found in the 
Debates in the Canadian Parliament, Upon the return of the dele- 
gates to Ottawa, the speech from the throne of February 25, 1892, 
announced the results of the conference and among other things said, 
"•an amicable understanding was arrived at respecting the steps to be 
taken for the esta))lishment of the ])oundary of Alaska.'' During the 
debate in the Senate on the speech from the throne Honorable Rich- 
ard W. Scott, the leader of the Liberal party of the Dominion, who 
had acted as Commissioner of Crown Lands when the proposition for a 
survey was under discussion between the two governments in 1873, 
and therefore well informed on the subject, spoke as follows: 

It is quite true that an amicable understanding was arrived at resj^ecting the steps 
to be taken for the establishment of the boundary of Alaska. It was not necessary 
to go to Washington to discuss that. The question has been discussed in despatches 
for twenty years. There was no dispute as to the boundary of Alaska. * * * it 
was settled in the treaty of 1825. The line was defined but not marked out. There is 
no dispute as to where it goes. It commences at Portland Channel and extends along 
the summit of the mountains, where these mountains do not extend more than 10 
marine leagues inwards, and if they are more than 10 marine leagues, then 10 leagues 
are the limit to a certain meridian, and from that point it is a straight line to the 
Frozen Ocean. * * * No doubt it is a very expensive boundary. The expensive 
part of it is, of course, the fringe of land that runs along the coast up to a pai'ticular 
part where the meridian runs, because it is entirely a matter of cost; 1 have never 
heard of any dispute as to the interpretation to be given to the treaty, because the 
treaty is i)lain and sjieaks for itself. ^ 

This view of the state of the boundary cjuestion in 1892 and of the 
interpretation of the treaty should commend itself to the considera- 
tion of the Tribunal, from the fact that the distinguished statesman 
who advanced it in Parliament is now a inenil)ei' of the Canadian 
Cabinet. 

« U. S. Counter Case, Apji., pp. 154-5. ''Ibid.. ]>. 154. Ibid., pp. l()7-8. 



THE ALLE(iET) BKITISH PROTESTS. 71 

THE ALLEGED BRITISH PROTESTS. 

An effort is made in the British Case to show that protests have 
been made to the Government of tlie United States at various times 
against its real or supposed claim to the boundary line. Noticing 
them in the order of time, the hrst advanced is the representation made 
respecting the report of Lieutenant Schwatka of a reconnaissance in 
1883 conducted by him in Alaska and adjoining British territory. The 
report was published in full with maps in 1885. From this it appears 
that he was sent by the general commanding one of the military 
departments on the Paciiic coast, to examine into the condition of the 
Indians of the Territory of Alaska, and to report upon the resources 
of the country in view of possible military oj)erations against the 
tribes." His instructions contemplated no survey of the boundary 
and his report does not develop any intention or attempt to do so. 

Two years after the report appeared the British minister in \A'ash- 
ington enclosed a memorandum in a note to the Secretar}' of State, 
without making any comment upon it, and added that " he (Schwatka) 
traversed British territory for a considerable distance without any 
intimation having been given the British authorities of his intention 
to do so;" but he stated that "no doubt had their acquiescence been 
asked it would not have been refused."'' The chief allegation of the 
memorandum was that in his report he had indicated Perrier Pass ""as 
defining the international boundary." The statement which gave 
rise to this assertion was, "'the country be^'ond Perrier Pass, in the 
Kotusk mountains, lies in British territory." '' The context shows that 
there was no intention to define the boundary, and this was so appar- 
ent that the minister did not feel called upon to make any comment. 
His note was regarded as of so little importance that it did not evoke 
a reply from the Secretary of State, and nothing further was heard of 
the incident until after the adjournment of the Joint High Commission 
in 1899, when the subject of the boundary bccaine a matter of discus- 
sion l)etween Lord Salisbury and Mr. Ciioate. This is styled "Can- 
ada's Protest" in the British Case.' 

In 1888 the British Minister brought to the notice of the Secretary 
of State -"a rumour " * * that a charter is about to be granted by 
the authorities of Alaska for certain privileges in a part of that coun- 

« U. S. Counter Case, App., p. 89. <U. S. Case, App., p. S9. 

^'Britif^h Case, App., p. 2."i7. '' Britisli Case, p. W. 



r2 COUNTER CASK OF THK UNITED STATES. 

trv which is cliiiined hy (Jretit Brituin." without uiNiiiu- the sliu-htost 
infoniiiitioii as to th(> locality. Secretary liayaid iiatinally responded 
that "the rumour * * * is. as stated by yon, cci-t;iinly vaonc and 
iudetiuite;" that his department had no notice of it; hut that lie would 
make incfuiry of his colleag'ue, the Secretary of the Intcn'ior. In a 
few days he informed the minister that the ollicial named had no 
information on the subject, and there the correspondtMice closed." 
'Phis is termed "a further protest of Her Majesty's Government."'' 

Jn fJune, 1891, the British minister in Washington addressed the 
Secretary of State a note in which he inserted an extract from the hist 
report of the Superintendent of the United States Coast and Geodetic 
Survey, stating that, in accordance with recent enactments of Congress, 
a preliminary survey of the Alaska ])oundary had been made, and 
described the line very much as it had been drawn in the Coast Survey 
map published by the Secretary of State at the time of the cession in 
1S()7, and as it had been marked on every map issued ])v the Govern- 
ment of the United States sin e that date. The minister followed the 
extract with the following statement: '"The Dominion Government 
have expressed a desire that the (jovernment of the United States may 
be reminded that the question of the Ixjundary at this point is, at the 
present time, the subject of some difference of opinion and of consid- 
erable correspondence, and that the actual l)oundary line can oidy be 
properly determined by an International Commission."' 

As the extract described the line from the southern extremity of 
Prince of Wales Island to the Arctic Ocean, a distance of 1.4oo miles, 
it was difficult to determine the locality referred to as " at this point.'' 
The survey was the one which grew out of the correspondence initi- 
ated by Secretary Bayard in 1885, and in which the Canadian Govern- 
ment had been invited but had failed to ])articii)ate. Th(^ note in 1888 
was so vague and indeiinite that no reply seems to have been made to 
it, and neither government again alluded to it until eleven years after- 
wards, when it was cited b}' the British charge in 11)02 as evidence of 
dissent from the claim of the United States to the watei' boundary 
along the Poi-tland Canal.'' This is styled '^The British Protest of 
June, 1891."^ 

« British Case, App., pp. 265-67. ''Ibid., p. 295. 

f' British Case, p. 94. <■ British Case, p. 9S. 

<• British Case, App., p. 268. 



THE ALLEGED BRITISH PROTESTS. 73 

Had it l)een the serious intention of the British Govcnunent to enter 
u i)rotest lioainst the chiini of the United States to the l)Oun(hirv as 
indicated in the Coast Survey maps, an appropriate time would have 
oeeurred when the latter government issued the map of 18(37, while the 
treatv of cession was pending- and before the transfer of Alaska was 
made. Another suitable occasion presented itself when, at the recpiest 
of Earl Granville, on November 17, 1883, the annual reports of the 
United States Coast and Geodetic Surve,y for the year 1874, 1875, 1870, 
1877. 1878, and 1871*. were delivered to the British legation in Wash- 
ington for the information and use of its government." These reports 
contained maps marking the boundary in the same maimer as in the 
report which was made the subject of the legation note of June 5, 
18U1. 

Again the British Case asserts that " the Canadian Government, in 
the early part of the year 1898, formally protested to the Imperial 
Government that the United States had established a sub-port of cus- 
toms at Dyea, in territory which they claimed w-as rightfully British,''* 
l)ut it is not alleged that this protest ever reached the Government of 
the United States. The British ambassador, on February 23, 1898, 
wrote the Secretary of State, that "the great traffic which is now 
attracted to the valley of the Yukon in the Northwest Territory by 
the recent discovery of gold in that region finds its way there from the 
coast, principally through cei'tain passes at the head of the Lynn Canal, 
and it has become more important than ever for jurisdictional pur- 
poses that the boundary, especially /// that particular locality, should 
be ascertained and defined."'' Out of that note grew the modas 
virend! of 1898-9 respecting White and Chilkoot Passes and the 
Ivlchini River; hut there is no indication in it of a protest even at 
that late date against the occupancy of Dyea by the United States 
authorities. 

The foregoing constitute a review of all the allegations in the 
liritish Case that the attention of the L'nited States has been called to 
the fact that the Government of His Britannic Majesty entertained 
views as to the interpretation of the treaty of 1825 opposed to those 
of the Ujiited States, and that His Majesty's Government has made 
protest against the claims of the United States and against the occu- 
])ancy of the teri'itory now in controN'ersy. 

« U. S. Counter Case, Api)., p. Ss. • r.ritish Case. \\^\\, p. -I'.n. 

i> British Ca*e, p. 96. 



74 COUNTER CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

The United States submits that the ucts stated and the so-called 
protests fall far short of the requirements of international law and 
the practice of nations, in cases of such importance and gravity as 
those involving large areas of territory and rights of navigation and 
commerce of the highest value. When matters of such moment 
are involved it is not the custom of governments to make known 
their views by means of an informal meeting of two citizens or 
subjects, clothed with no authority either to speak or act for them. 
Neither is it usual when an unwarranted assumption of territorial 
sovereignt}' is charged to present protests in lang-uage so vague and 
indefinite as to fail to make them understood by the otiending 
government. 

The contention of the United States is that up to August 1, 18'J8, it 
had no distinct and official announcement that the British Govern- 
ment entertained view respecting the interpretation of the treaty of 
1825 materially at variance with those uniforml}^ put forth and main- 
tained by the United States from the date of the acquisition of Alaska, 
It admits that there has existed some uncertaint}' as to the exact 
point where the line should l)e drawn on the rivers and streams which 
flow from British through American territory into the sea; but not 
until a copy of the instructions of the British members of the Joint 
High Conmiission were sent to the Secretary of State on August 1, 
1898, was any special assertion of a claim to the heads of the inlets 
made by the British Government; and not until the British Case was 
delivered on May 2, 1903, was there a distinct and formal averment 
made by that government that it contested the water boundarj^ as 
laid dow'n upon all of the official maps of the United States since 1867. 

On the other hand the United States sul)mitted to the Tribunal in its 
Case a mass of evidence to show that Kussia and the United States have 
since the treaty of 1825 been and remained in uncontested possession 
of the limcre as claimed by them; and it herewith submits further 
evidence to show not oidy the accjuiescence of (ireat I^ritain in this 
peaceful possession, but the recognition of this jjossession by various 
of its authorities and their declarations that no ))rotests have I)een 
made against the American occupation. 

In addition to other acts, cited in this Coimter Case, of acciuiescence 
by the liritish authorities in th(^ ot'cupation of tli(^ United States, 
attention is I'alled to the declaration of Lord Lansdowne, the present 



THE ALLKGKI) BRITISH PROTESTS. 75 

hctul of the British Foreig-n Office. Tn his reply to Mr. Choate he 
says: "The nuiin question in this controversy is that which iiiv(jlves 
the ownership of the heads of inlets in i;eneral, and of the Lynn 
Canal in particukr."" In the Case of the United States and else- 
where in this Counter Case the facts of the American occupation of 
that portion of Ahiska are fully discussed. It is now desired to sub- 
mit to the Tribunal the testimony of the hig-hest British authorities 
as to what has been the character of the protests, if any, which have 
been made to the American occupation of the inlets at the head of 
Lynn Canal. 

During- the debate in the Canadian House of Commons on the Yukon 
railway bill, February 11, 1898, the Minister of the Interior, Hon- 
orat)le Clitt'ord Sifton, was questioned as to the ownership of the 
territory in th^ vicinity of the passes about the head of Lynn Canal, 
and he replied as follows: 

Diffic-ulties also arose in the White Pass, behind the village of Skagway, and at 
Chilkat Pass behind Dyea. I believe onr contention is that Skagway and Dyea are 
really in Canadian territory, but as the United States have had undisputed possession 
of these for some time past, we are precluded from attempting to take possession of 
that territory. 

Sir Charles Hibbert Tipper. May I be excused for saying that I do not think 
the Honourable Minister meant to say "undisputed possession". 

Tiie ^IiNisTEu OF THE INTERIOR. There have been no protests made. It must he 
taken as undisputed when there has been no protest made against the occupation of 
that territory by the United States. 

Sir Chari.es Hihbekt Tipper. A claim, I suppose, was made and adhered to? 

The Minister op' the Interior. There is nothing in the records to show that any 
protest has been made — an unfortunate thing for us,, but it is a fact. I do not know 
that tliat particularly affects the discussion, because there has been no real discussion 
aljout that particular point. * * * '' 

Five days later the Prime Minister, Sir Wilfred Laurier, was asked 
))y the ineml>er from Victoria. British Colunibi:i. respecting a report 
that the United States was about to send tr()()})s to Pyea and Skagway. 
The Prime Minister stated that he was not informed as to the inten- 
tions of the (xovernment of the United States and added: 

My luniourable friend is aware that, although this is di.si)Uted territory, it has been 
in the possession of the United States ever since they acquired this country from the 
Russian Government in 1867, and, so far as my information goes, 1 am not aware 

"U. S. Counter Case, .\pp., p. 158. ''Ibid., p. Iti'i. 



76 COUNTER CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

that any protest lias ever been raised by any Goverinnent ajzainst the iiccupatiim of 
Dyea and iSkagway by the United States. It is only in recent years that the atten- 
tion of the pul)lic has been drawn to it." 

Tlie t'ofcgoiiio- are tlu> doclunitions of the Minister to who.se dcpart- 
iiient the .subject of the ))Oundiii'v speciality pertained, and of the head 
of the Dominion (Jovernment — the two officials best qualified and most 
fully authorized to make a public statement of the facts involved. It 
is not to be presumed that they spoke unadvisedly or without a proper 
investigation of the official records. But the pul)lished '"'■ Debates" 
show that in the month following, after ample time had elapsed for 
examination, the subject was before the House of Commons again, 
upon a motion by the leader of the opposition, Sir Charles Tupper. 
In his reply, the Prime Minister, Sir Wilfred Laurier, said: 

Now I will not recriminate here; this is not the time nor the occaieion for doing so; 
but so far as I am aware no jirotest has ever been entered against the occupation of 
Dyea ))y the American authorities; and when the American authorities are in pos- 
session of that strip of territory on the sea which has Dyea as its harbour, succeeding 
the possession of the Russians from time immemorial, it l)ecomes manifest to every- 
body that at this moment we can not dispute their possession, and that before their 
possession can be disputed, the question must be determined by a settlement of the 
question involved in the treaty.'' 

^\'hen it i^ remembered that all the acts which are cited as ''])ro- 
tests"" in the British Case, with one exception, had a presumed relation 
to the territory about the passes at the head of Lynn Canal, the Tri- 
bunal ma^" determine, in the light of the public declarations of the 
Prime Mini.ster and the Minister of the Interior of the Dominion of 
Canada, I'elating to what Lord Landsdowne terms "the main question 
in this controversy," what weight 'should be attached to the averments 
now made on behalf of Great Britain. 

AMERICAN OCCUPATION. 

The Cnited States sii))mitted in its Case an overwhelming array of 
evidence to establish its complete, continuous and uncontested occupa- 
tion and control over the territor}' which it I'eceived from Russia, and 
u})on that evidence it would be ([uite content to leave to the Tribunal 
the decision of the question, how far that occupation and conti'ol, in 
connection with the acts of the litigant parties respecting it, atiect 
the true interpretation and meaning of the treaty. 

" U. S. Counter Case, App., p. 170. 6 Ibid., p. 172. 



AMKRICAX OCCUPATION. i I 

Hut the British Case, in treatini:- upon this subj(H-t, couttiin.s some 
strang-e assertions of fact and conclusions, whirh it is deeiuecl proper 
should receive attention. It contends that, up to a recent day, there 
has been a marked absence of control by the United States throuohout 
the lislert'-J' it is able to cite but two cases between Istilt and isiMj "to 
show the very slight nature of the control occasionally exercised l)v 
the United States over the inhal)itants of Alaska"''; it states that the 
isolated acts of possession of citizens of the United States at the head 
of Lynn Canal bear no importance in the present case and that they 
were in violation of hiw: that the primitive condition of the country 
remained unchanged until about 1S!M), which date is tixed as the begin- 
ning" of the mining exploitation; and that the assumed claim of the. 
United States, that the possession about Dyea and Skagway should 
influence the Tribunal in its decision, 'Ms wholl}' disputed."'' 

Bv reference to the Case of the United States it will be seen that 
for several years after the cession of Alaska it was held, so far as the 
Ustei'e was concerned^ mainly as an Indian territory and that the laws 
of the United States, except so far as was necessary for the preserva- 
tion of order and the protection of commerce and the revenue were 
concerned, were not extended over it. This naturally had a restrain- 
ing influence upon immigration and white settlement. But it was 
shown by indubitable official evidence that during that period the 
authority of the United States was continuously exercised by the 
army, the na\y and the revenue service throughout the whole of 
the //n/V'/v. and especially along the Stikine River and up to the heads 
of all the inlets: that peace and order was enforced among the Indians 
in those regions, and the}' were made to recognize the unquestioned 
authority of the United States: and that the customs regulations were 
in operation throughout the territory. It also was shown that during 
the same period survevs of all the coasts of the Ilxieiw including the 
inlets and the rivers emptying into them, were made. 

It was not until 1SS4 that the Congress of the United States decided 
to give the territory a civil government, but a considerable white set- 
tlement had existed at Wrangell at the mouth of the Stikine from the 
date of the cession: in ISso the town of Juneau on the mainland was 
founded, and about the same time a mission school was established at 
Haines at the head of Lvnn Canal and white settlers began to enter 



(I British Case, p. 89. '> Il»i<l., p. 90. ' Ihid., pp. 92, 93. 

26()26 6 



78 COUNTER CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

that i-euioii. TluMu-ot'oi'ward, us hus Vxhmi shown in the Case of the 
United States, the reion of hiw and the administration of justice, under 
the undisputed authority of the Ignited States has continued. 

In view, however, of the statements in the British Case, it has been 
determined to submit to the Tribunal, in rebuttal of these statements, 
further evidence relatino- to the occupation of the districts at the head 
of Lynn Canal since 1880, and more particularly the depositions of 
officials as to the character of the authority exercised in that region. 

It was not deemed necessary to adduce further proof of the absolute 
control of the Indians, so fully established in the Case of the United 
States, but there are added certitied copies of several documents, still 
preserved, given to Indian chiefs and others by the officials of the 
United States" which, Avith those in the Case, show the presence in 
the inlets of Lynn Canal of na\al and other authorities of the United 
States annually for the first twenty years after the cession. 

In addition to evidence already submitted, depositions are now pro- 
duced showing that a trading post was established at Haines on Chil- 
koot Inlet in 1880, another soon followed, and in LSSfi a third trading 
post was located at a place since called Dyea; that a sujall pei-manent 
settlement of Americans existed at Haines in 1888; and that "during- 
the 80"'s " from one to two hundred American miners Avere passing to 
and from the Yukon region, and making this point their place of sup- 
ply,'^ and they constantl}^ increased in numbers until the great *' rush'' 
occurred about 1897. It is also show^n tluit in 18s;-> there were three 
canneries in operation at and in the vicinity of Pyramid Harbor; that 
by 1888 their annujil output amounted to 55,0<>0 cans; and that they 
were among the first and most important in Alaska.' It appears in 
the Case that immediately after the civil government was estal)lished 
in 188-1 the Pres])yterian mission at Haines was surveyed and the sur- 
vey filed in the land office at Sitka. Depositions now submitted show 
that surveys were made of the early trading posts and notice of their 
location filed with the United States collector at Sitka, and that various 
official surveys wei'e made by the United States deputy sur\eyor fi-om 
1889 to 1891, and a map of the surveys in Pyramid Harbor in 1891 will 
be found in the Atlas accompanying this Counter Case, Map No. 32.'^ 

In 1887 a Canadian exploring survey party to the Yukon, under 
the direction of William Ogilvie, arrived at Haines. This party was 

«U. S. Counter Case, App., pp. 212-214, 288. ''Ibid., pp. 220, 230, 231. 

f^ Ibid., pp. 220, 230, 233. '' Ibid., pp. 220, 229, 231, 235. 



AMERICAN OCCUPATION. 79 

oporutiiio' with another Dominion party undor Dr. (xoorge M. Dawson, 
which had entered upon its work through the Stikine route. The 
boats of the party were towed up from Juneau to Taiya Inlet b}-^ the 
Fnited States naval vessel "Pinta," Conuuander Newell. "While 
waitino- there for supplies Ogilvie made some surveys at the head of 
the inlets; Commander Newell reported, "having previously asked 
authority from me to begin these, which request I cheerfully 
granted.''^' Mr. Ogilvie had much difficulty in inducing the Chilkoot 
Indians to transport his supplies and instruments over the mountain 
passes on his way to the interior on account of their anger at the 
British because the Hudson's Bay people had killed some of the tribe, 
It appears there was a party of Stick Indians from the interior 
of British territory trading at Haines, who were ready to do the 
packing over the trail, but the}' Avero not permitted bv the Chilkoots 
who held them to be foreigners. Mr. Ogilvie had to appeal to 
Commander Newell, who. Ogilvie in his othcial report says, '"kindh' 
aided me in making arrangements with the Indians. ^' * * Com- 
mander Newell told him [the Chilkoot chief] I had a permit from the 
Great Father at Washington to pass through his country safeh% that 
he would see that 1 did so, and if the Indians interfered with me they 
would be punished for doing so. * * * I am strongh' of the opin- 
ion that these Indians woidd have l)een much more difficult to deal 
with if they had not known that Commander Newell remained in the 
inlet to see that I got through without accident."* 

Mr, Ogilvie on his return from the Yukon again passed through 
Haines where he was joined b}' Dr. Dawson. United States Deputy 
Marshall Ilealy deposes: "" I had considerable talk with them during 
their visit. Thev made no protest against the occupation at the head 
of Lynn Canal by Americans, and made no claim to the region as 
belonging to Canada."'' 

In view of the voluminous official reports of the surveys made b^- 
.Messrs. Ogilvie and Dawson, and of thinr visit to the head of Lynn 
Canal in lss7. it can not be seriously maintained that " until 1S1>6 the 
(Tovernments of Oreat Britain or Canada knew litth' or nothing"*'' of 
that region, or that they were ignorant of the exercise of sovereignty 
by the United States over that district. 

» U. S. Case, App. p. 391. '11)1(1., p. 235. 

''U. S. Counter Case, App., pp. i.'lo-217, 234, '_>:;.'>. '/ British Case, p. 92. 



80 COUNTER CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

In the year issT Francis II. Poindexter was appointed ju.stice of the 
peace for the district in and a))out Pyramid Harbor, and acted in that 
capacity until he left Alaska in 1S'.>1. In the discharo-e of his duties 
he took coo'uizance of both civil and criminal cases arising- on the shores 
of Chilkat Inlet and in the country adjacent thereto. Poindexter after 
leaving- Alaska resided in California until his death in October, 1898." 

About the year 188U dohn -I. Healy was appointed Ignited States 
deputy marshal, and in lSt)U he was also connuissioned as deputy col- 
lector of customs, and exercised the functions of these offices over the 
country about the head of Lynn Canal, including- Chilkat. Chilkoot, 
and_D3'ea Inlets.^' Other officials in the. enforcement of the revenue 
laws about the same time seized and confiscated liquors in the vicinitv 
of the summit of Chilkoot Pass.' 

In 1s<j7 flohn U. Smith was appointed ])y the President of the 
United States commissioner for the judicial district of Alaska. He 
states that he reach e'd Dyea, Alaska, in July of that year. Soon after 
his arrival, being- informed that a numl)er of Canadian officials were 
stationed at Skagway, he went to that place and found them located in 
tents: that he addressed the person who represented himself to be in 
charge of the party, and who was dressed in the uniform of a Cana- 
dian mounted police, stating that he hoped there would be no difficulty 
between them as to the exercise of jurisdiction and authorit}^ at Skag- 
way and Dyea; tliat the Canadian official said there should be none, 
and that he and his party withdrew beyond the mountain pass to Lake 
Tag'ish. He further deposes that he was present as United States 
commissioner when the resident citizens of the United States met to 
locate the town of Skagway juider the L^nited States laws, and like- 
wise at Dyea when similar proceedings were had, and that neither 
then nor at any time before he ceased to act as connnissioner in May, 
1898. was any ])rotest made by Canadian officials or subjects who vis- 
ited these localities, against these proceeding's, nor anj^ claim made b}- 
them that those towns were within Canadian territory. 

Commissioner Smith states that on the tiail which extended from 
Skagwa}' over White Pass to Lake Bennett, a distance of about thirty- 
live miles, and on the trail from Dyea to Lake Linderman a distance 
of thirt}" miles he exercised jurisdiction and that on numerous occa- 
sions he sent deputy marshals over those trails to make arrests; that 



« U. S. Counter Case, App., pp. 218, 230, 282. c ibid., p. 221. 

Hbid., p. 235. 



AMERICAN OCCUPATION. 81 

ho has lu) knowUnlo-i' that any Canadian ottit-ials made arrests on these 
trails: that Canadian otticials often visited l\vca andSkagway and knew 
that he was holdino- court and excrcisino- such jurisdiction, but so far 
as he was int'oruied never made any protest ai>'ainst his acts; that in the 
month of September 1897, under instructions from his government, he 
visited Lake Lind(M-iuan to investig-ate an alleged cutting of timber on 
American territory, and that he assumed at that place jurisdiction of 
of an otiense there, in the presence of the Canadian official in charge 
in that vicinity and without his protest; and that in October 1897, he 
was visited in Dyea bv one Bevan, who represented himself to be, and 
he believes him to have been, an inspector of Canadian police, who 
agreed with him that the limit of exercise of jurisdiction over the 
trails named should be at a point between Lakes Bennett and Linder- 
man fixed upon between them and so indicated on a sketch, which is 
reproduced in his deposition.^' 

It also appears from the deposition of the United States officials 
cited, the superintendent of the canneries, the owners of the trading- 
posts, and other residents that from the first location of white settlers 
at the head of Lynn Canal in ISSO up to the year 189S. all persons 
regarded and accepted all the localities in that vicinity as the territor}^ 
of the United States, that all locations entry and record of titles were 
made under the laws of the United States, that jurisdiction and 
authority was in all cases exercised by United States officials; and that 
no British or Canadian official or subject during the period named 
ever made any claim of territory or filed or uttered any protest against 
the exercise of authority by the United States. 

It is contended on the part of the Ignited States that the facts herein 
set forth, and in its Case, establish beyond controversy that the United 
States has been in complete and peaceful occupation and control of 
the territory a])out the head of Lynn Canal from 18^)7; that this occu- 
pation and control were well known to the Canadian (iovernment and 
its officials; and that no claim was advanced by them to this territory 
or any protest made against the American occuinition previous to 
1898. In the presence of these facts and of th(^ public declarations of 
the present Prime Minister of Canada and of the ^Minister of the 
Interior that Kus.sia had b(^en in possession of the territory in question 
from time innnemorial. and thtit in l^t)7 it pass(>d into the hands of 



U. S. Counter Case, App., pp. 222-227. 



82 COUNTER CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

the Aineiiciins. l)y whom it whs held in undisputed possession up to 
1898, it is suooosted that the contention in the British Case is not 
well founded that these faets should have no influence upon the 
Trihunal. 

THE BOUNDARIES PROPOSED BY GREAT BRITAIN. 

A serious euibarrassnient which has in the past presented itself to the 
United States in the consideration of the informal or unofhcial claims 
of Great Britain and Canada respecting- the houndar}- has l)een the 
variable and confiicting- character of those claims advanced from time 
to time. The British Case presents for the first time in the history of 
the controversy a distinct, complete, and formal announcement of its 
claim respecting- the boundary of the //.svV/v. And this claim ditiers 
from every other claim which has l)een set forth l)y British or Cana- 
dian officials or subjects. A brief review of the various phases which 
the question has underi>-one at the hands of those officials and subjects, 
when they attempted to depart from the long-accepted interpretation 
of the treaty, may be useful in a consideration of the claim of Great 
Britain now l)efore the Tribunal. 

For about twenty years after the United States took possession of 
Alaska and pul)lished its official map of 1867, there was a general 
acceptance by British and Canadian officials, cartooTa]jhers and Avriters 
of the line marlvcd out b}- Kussia and so explicitly and i)ublicly laid 
down b}' the United States. It has been seen that when a move- 
ment was initiated in 1872 for a survey and delimitation, there was no 
dissent in the pulilic offices either at London or Ottawa from the 
proposition that the line was to be drawn, under the treaty, across all 
the rivers and streams wliicli empty into the inlets and straits of the 
sea. When gold was discovered near the headwaters of the Stikine in 
paying quantities a few years later, and an efiort was made to push 
down the line which had heretofore l)cen ol)served l)v the Hudson\s 
Bay Company and detei'niined by the Canadian Privy Council, no sug- 
gestion was made that the line crossing the rivers should beaI)andoned. 
As Lord Iddesleigh, directing the foreign affairs of the British Gov- 
ernment in 1886, expressed it, in referring to the boundary marked as 
laid down by the Cnited States, it was admitted that the boundary 
was '"somewhere in that region". 

The first indication of a change in the views of Canadians on the 
subject was manifested in British Columbia. A report of the Execu- 



BOUNDARIES PROPOSED BY GKEAT BRITAIN. 83 

tive Council of tlu' Provincial Government published in 1885" shows 
thiit a very full and detailed discussion of the l)oundarv took place in 
the Council, with a copy of the treat}' of 1825 published in ^IcCul 
lach's Connnercial Dictionary before it. This text of the treat}" did 
not contain in Article III the words '"'' called Portland VlKininiy 
Upon this text the Council reached the following conclusion: **The 
Government of British Columbia contends that any recognition of the 
words ' Portland Channer as beino- in the Treaty, was a grave mistake, 
and most injurious to the interests of British Columbia." The official 
map makers of the Province were accordingly directed to prepare a 
map to conform •* to the interests of British Columbia," and it appeared 
with the Ijoundary drawn from Cape Chacon up Clarence Strait, thus 
giving the Portland Peninsula and the Revillagigedo Archipelago to 
Canada. On this new map, however, the line crossed the Stikine at 
the point fixed by Hunter, and passed about 10 leagues around the 
heads of the inlets. It is a curious fact that the genesis of the Cana- 
dian claims had its origin in a false text of the treaty of 1825. 

In 1888 Dr. Dawson, who was in Washington seeking to impress 
upon Dr. Dall the views of General Cameron, produced a new map. 
also originating in British Columbia. The hallucination seemed still 
to exist that "Portland Channel" did not exist in the treaty, but a 
step further had been taken to protect "the interests of British Co- 
lumbia." Hunters range of mountains disappeared, all the rivers 
were pushed back into Canada by the pencil of the draughtsman, and 
the line was drawn across the heads of all the inlets. A still further 
advance was made in British Columbia, in the contention that the 
political coast line outside the Alaskan archipelago was the line from 
which the treaty limit of ten leagues from the coast was to l)e drawn, 
a contention which ett'aced the lisiere from the mainland. This 
latter claim was probably of the class referred to in the semi-ofticial 
Ottawa article in the Edinburgh Review, as '' the extravagant claims 
put forward l)y over-z(>alous British Columbians." although it is repro- 
duced and insisted upon in the British Colunil)ia Year Book for 11K>1.^ 

From about 1888 the Canadian official maps ceased to appear, as 
formerly, with the boundary marked in accordance with the official 
maps of the United States, although it was asserted in the Dominion 
House of Commons on May 6, 1901, that the large official map of the 



<iV. S. Counter Case, App., p. 180-190. '- Il.i.l., p. l.'04. 



84 COUNTER CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

Dominion of Ciinadu exhibitod by the Caiiiulian ('onnni>si()n at the last 
Paris Exposition had the boundaiy marked as cdaimed l»y the Ignited 
States. " On the other liand. it will be seen l)v an examination of the 
Appendix to this Counter Case'' that the British map pul)lishei's eon- 
tinued almost uniformly e\en up to a very late date, to mark the 
boundary as it appears on the ofiieial maps of the United States. This 
is especially noticeable in the British Admiralty cluirts. The British 
Colonial Otfice List, although not an ofBcial issue, is understood to be 
the only publication of the kind, and to be circulated by the Colonial 
Office: and it is professedly " com])iled from othcial records," etc. In 
1869 this publication contained a oeneral map of the British Domin- 
ions showino- the Alaskan lixiri'e substantially as claimed l)y the United 
States. Simihir maps appeared in its annual issues up to and includ- 
ing- Vd'(Yl. In the issue of 1903 the map was omitted. '' 

Th^re has been as much varianc-e and moditication of views on the 
boundary (juestion ))y the public men and writers of Canada, as in the 
map publications. Extracts from some of the recent published arti- 
cles are given. ^^ Hon. David Mills, in 1879, in the Dominion Parlia- 
ment, com))atted tlie opinion of the British law officers that the right 
had been lost to navigate the rivers and streams which flowed through 
Kussian territory to the sea,^ but in an article printed in 1899'' he 
claimed that the true boundary line should be drawn across the iidets, 
thus placing all the rivers except the Stikine in British territory. In 
the same article he contended that the ten 3-ears' privilege of trade 
granted b}- Article VII of the treaty of 18^25 was confined to the //s/t'/'t^, 
and yet the British Government in the Fur Seal Arbitration at Paris in 
1893 maintained that it applied to the whole of the Northwest Coast 
of America.^' He asserted in 1899 that the true interpretation of the 
treaty recpiired that the boundary line should pass up Clarence Strait, 
while the government of which he was a minister has now asserted 
that the true interpretation of the treat}' requires it to pass up Pearse 
and Portland Canals. 

It has T)een seen that Hon, K. Vs . Scott, Minister of State in the 
present Canadian Cabinet, declared in the Dominion Senate in 1892 



" U. S. Counter Case, App., ji. 178. ' Il)i<l., ]». IHo. 

''Ibid., pp. 248-250. .'' Il>i«l., p. 204. 

<'II)i(l., p. 245. ;/ Ibid., ])p. inO-194. 
''Ibid., pp. 200-211. 



boundarip:s proposkd by gk?:at hritain. 85 

that there was no dispute as to tlie l)ouii(laiv. and he deserihed the 
line, aceordinu' to the treaty, as follows: "It eoniuienees at Portland 
Channel and extends alono- the summit of the mountains, where those 
mountains do not extend more than 10 mariiu> lea^-ues inwards, and if 
the}' are more than !<• marine leag'ues, then 10 leagues is the limit to 
a certain meridian, and from that point it is a straight line to the 
frozen ocean."" IIow rtulically that line diilers from the one his own 
government has now sul)mitted to the Tribunal ma}' be seen by ref- 
erence to Map No. 37 of the Atlas accompanying the British Case. ^ 

Attention has been called to the parliamentary declarations of the 
Prime ^Minister and the Minister of the Interior of Canada that there 
has been undisputed American possession about the head of Lynn 
Canal, and that it has been held from time immemorial by Russia and 
the United States; nevertheless the British Case has occupied con- 
siderable space in the attempt to show repeated protests bv Great 
Britain against this occupation, and a line is insisted upon which 
places the larger portion of that arm of the sea in British territory. 
Without dwelling further upon the inconsistencies and conflict of views 
of the statesmen of Canada, attention is called to extracts from various 
recent articles published by prominent Canadians,^ showing similar 
inconsistencies and as marked conflict with the position in the British 
Case as those already cited. 

In order to illustrate more graphically these inconsistent claims, a 
comparative reproduction on a reduced scale is presented, in the Atlas 
accompanjing this Counter Case, of five British Columbian maps and 
of three British maps to which official authenticity has l)een given at 
difl'erent times. (See Sheet No. 28.) An examination of them will 
show the appropriateness of the follow'ing colloqu}' which took place 
in the Dominion Parliament. February 11, 1898: 

Sir Charles Hibbert Tcpper. * * * I do not know how far the government 
would be warranted in marking wliat is disputed territory, nevertheless I think it 
would not confound any proper conception to mark the points they [the United 
States] have already occupied in the territory with customs officers. 

The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Sir Louis Davies). It might he as hard 
to find the disputed boundary as the real boundary. 

Sir Charles Hibbert TrppER. I do not press for any impropriety being com- 
mitted, but I think this can be done * * * d 

«U. S. Counter Case, App., p. 167. 'T'. S. Counter Case, App., pp. 200-l'11. 
''U. S. Counter Case, Atlas, No. 2t). <Ubid., pp. 108-9. 



86 COUNTER CASE (>F THE UNITED STATES. 

The ocuUir coinpai'utiv(» studv of the iiiap.s reprodiu-cd on Sheet No. 
28 of the Athis may be aided l)y a comparison of figures. 

The first map on the Sheet (mari^ed n in the table of contents), issued 
by the Government of British Columbia has the line drawn approxi- 
mately as it appeared on all British and Canadian maps up to the date 
of its })ubliration in lS,S-f. This line is in substantial agreement with 
the interpretation placed upon the treaty ))v the Ignited States. 

It will be found that the second British Columbia map of 1S84 
(marked Z>), which may not have been issued until 1885, has given to 
the United States as its Udh'e approximately ir».64o square miles. 
Dr. Dawson's Map of 1887 (marked c) Avhicli was used by him at 
A^'ashington in 1888 and which Lord Lansdowne has stated repre- 
sented the views of the British Government," draws a "line approxi- 
mately following summits of mountains parallel to the coast " and 
gives to the United States as its Jidere approximately 8,930 square 
miles. 

The Joint High Commission Map of 1898 (marked g) was a map with 
the boundary traced upon it in red ink, which was submitted to that 
conuuission by the British mem))ers at Quebec on August 30, 1898. 
It is presumed to represent the \ iews and wishes of the British Gov- 
ernment at that time. It is somewhat similar to the map (marked/') 
just above it on the sheet, except that the boundary- line on the latter 
crosses over to Douglas Island and takes in the Treadwell gold mine. 
The British Commissioners' map gives to the United States as its 
lislere approximatelj' 3,340 square miles. 

The Map No. 37 in the Atlas to the British Case (marked Ji). which 
is the ultimate and most formal presentation of the British claim," 
gives to the United States as its Usiere approximately 7,900 square 
miles. 

Contrasted with these varying claims of the British authorities is 
the uniform lislere^ as shown on the official maps of the United States 
since 1867, which contains approximately 32.000 square miles. 

An examination of ]\Iap No. 37 in the Atlas accompanying the 
British Case, and which is reproduced in the Atlas accompanying this 
Counter Case as No. 20 and on a reduced scale in No. 28, will show: 

(1) That it is inconsistent with the positions heretofore occupied by 
the British and Canadian GoA(u-nments. its officials, historians, carto- 
graphers and writers. These inconsistencies appear in what has 

« U. S. Counter Case, A pp., p. 159. 



BOUNDARIES 1'R()1M)SKD BY GREAT BRITAIN. 87 

already l)een stated in this Couiitoi' Case, and need not here be 
repeated. Attention, however, is called to the fact that practically all 
the rivers which were supposed to cross the ll)<lire have been placed 
in British territory. Such an interpretation of the treaty of 182.5 is 
at variance with the former attitude of the British and Canadian 
(Jovernnients and their statesmen, and renders meaninoless the pro- 
vision contained in Article VI of that treaty. 

(2) That it also conspicuously io-nores the acts of its own officials 
respecting- the Stikine River. It has been shown that the Canadian 
Privy Council and various British and Canadian officials recognized the 
crossing of that river by the l)ouiidarv line somewhere in the vicinity 
of 57^ of latitude: but that later under the pressure of the gold mining 
interests of the Cassiar district an officer was sent to survey that 
river, and that he reported to the Canadian Government that he had 
located '' the summit of the mountains parallel to the coast" as stated 
in the treat}'; and he fixed the point where the river cut through that 
mountain range. For more than twenty years this alleged topogra- 
phical fact has been insisted upon by Canadian officials. But in con- 
.structing the new map of the Ilxicre in the British Case, all these 
historical facts are ignored and the mountain range, apparently so 
surelv established by the Hunter survey of 1877, disappears, and a new 
line is invented to follow the peaks on the coast. 

(3) That an examination of the new line shoAvs not only its inconsist- 
ency. l)ut its impracticable, even absurd, character. In drawing the 
boundarv from the head of Portland Canal in search of a coast range, 
the line leaves the mainland, cuts off a portion of Bell Island, and 
extends British dominion over a part of the ocean admittedly belong- 
ing to the United States. In Endicott Arm another island is appro- 
])riated which contains valualde gold mines now being worked by 
Americans; and elsewhere, along the coast, islands of unknown \alue 
are transferred to British domain. 

(4) That it also appropriates all the inlets, and almost all of the 
harbors and safe anchorages along the //.s/fV'/'e, lea\ing the United States 
without proper localities along the mainland to moor its vessels or 
establish ))ases for its commerce. The '"point (TappxT^ so stoutly and 
so successfully contended for by Russia in the negotiations has no 
existence in the //.wV/v marked out in tlu^ Hritisli Case. 

(.")) liut a more seri(»iis condition is developed l)y this new map. 
For more than twenty years past citizens of the United States have 



88 COUNTER CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

been eng-ao-eci in the exploitation of the niincrul woultii whicli their 
enterprise, under tlie protection of their government, has l)rouyht 
to lio-ht in the llsiri'r. " A list of the location of the mines now 
in operation will show how they are attccted by the new line pro- 
posed by Great Britain. Taken in their g-eographical order, the 
tirst to l)e noted are those in what is known as the Porcupine dis- 
trict. They are situated on the creeks of the Klchini Kivcr and 
are on the American side of the provisional line aj^reed upon in 
1899. They carrv placer gold, and extensive exploitation and 
development have been going on there for four years. These would 
all be placed within British territory by the new line. In the 
Berners Bay district are grouped a iuun))er of important gold 
and silver quartz mines. The tirst of these was located in 1885 and 
others in the next following years. ^^ They represent heavy invest- 
ments of capital. The British line seems to cut directly through 
the district, and it is difficult to state just how many of the mines 
would be affected by it. Back of Juneau on the mainland is situated 
a group of important gold and silver ((uartz mines which for twentj^ 
years past have produced largely. The British line in that vicinity 
runs close to the shore, and seems to place some of those mines in 
peril. In the Snettisham district there are several groups of gold and 
silver mines now being actively worked. Nearly all, if not all. of 
these seem to be transferred to British territory. In the Sumdum 
district there are valuable groups of gold and silver mines, all of 
which are placed on the British side of the line, including the rich 
mines of Sumdum island. The gold placer beds at the head of ^^'ind- 
ham Bay share the same fate. The Unuk River gold and silver bear- 
ing quartz lodes beyond peradventure become British by this line. 
The Ketchikan district located in the extreme southw(\st. partly on 
the islands and parth' on the mainland, seems to include the onW gold 
and silver mines in the lifilere which have escaped the rapacity of the 
scientists who have constructed the line along the coast peaks; but 
even these mines would loss their nationality if tlu^ alternative line 
suggested in the Jii'itish Case should ])e adopted. 

To enable the Ti'ibunal to more fully understand the location and 
character of the mines in question an official report from the United 
States Geological Survey is herwith submitted. '' 



«U. S. Case, App., pp. 492-405. cu. S. Counter Case, App., p. 266. 

'>Il)i(l., p. 494. 



BOUNDARIES I'KoPoSKI) HV CiKKAT BKITAIX. 89 

(6) Fiiiiilly. l>y the aid of the Canadian scientists and (■art()o-rai)li('rs, 
the United States is given a Uf<iere broken up into disconnected and 
worthless fraiiinents, the burden of whose possession and control no 
oovernnient would be willino- to assume. The map shows that these 
isolated promontories and mountainous shores numl)er sixteen in all. 
scattered alonu' a coast of three hundi'ed miles. Some of these are 
only from one half a mile to two and a half miles in Avidth and from 
two and a half to three miles in length. Two of them contain only 
tliree and live scjuare miles respectively; five of them less than one 
hundred s(ju;ire miles each: and of the sixteen, thirteen contain less 
than six hundred square miles each. In the presence of such facts, 
how attenuated and useless becomes the harrier on the mahihind 
which the Russian ne.Q"otiators demanded should be assured to them 
by the treaty of 1S-J5. Durino- the Fur Seal Arbitration of lSt»;-3. this 
treaty Avas the subject of a thorough examination and discussion, and 
in the course of it one of the distinguished counsel of Great Britain 
detined this oft-used word "//.svV'/ v." His language was: ^' '"Lisiere" 
is '-selvage' — 'strip' — like the edge of cloth". What becomes of this 
apt definition in the presence of the torn and raveled fringe upon the 
map presented in the British Case '. 

In contrast with the inconsistent, variable, and impracticable bound- 
ary lines which have attended the British and Canadian treatment of 
this question, stands the uniform and consistent attitude of the United 
States. The map which was carefulh' prepared and published to the 
world at the cession in 18<)7 has remained unchanged in any essential 
respect in the many official editions which have been issued since that 
date, witii only such slight moditications as the gradually obtained geo- 
graphic kiiowiddge made necessary, and which in no degree modified 
the interpretation which the United States from the beginning has placed 
upon the treaty. An eiiort is made in the British Case,^ to establish 

"V. S. Counter Case, App., p. 195. (Extract from Oral Arixuinent in Fur Seal 
Arbitration.) 

Mr. Justice Harlan. — What are the English words in Article VI corresimnilini: 
to lisiere? 

Sir Richard Wkhster. — 1 will read it: 

"May cross the line of demarcation upon the line of coa.st." 

The expression "line of coast" is not the proper. translation — it ought to be ".v/c/y* 
of coast." "Strip" is the correct translation of " lisiere," if I may be permitted to 
say so Mr. Pre-sident, and no doubt if I am wrong you will correct me. "Lisiere" 
is "selvage" — "strip" — like the edge of cloth — "border. " 

^ British Case, pp. 103, 104. 



90 COUNTER CASE OF THE rXITED STATES. 

some discrcpuiu'v in two niups puhlishod with the tenth census of the 
United States. As to the tirst of these, even iuhnitting- the statement as 
made, it does not atJect the character of the map as l)eing in substantial 
ao-reement with the other maps of the g-overnment. It was not pre- 
pared in the office of the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey and 
for that reason some slight variance was natural. The second map (Xo. 
30 in the British Atlas) is on a very reduced scale and was drawn for the 
purpose of indicating timber distribution. &c. The British Case states 
that it ''shows the boundary line apparently crossing the head of Lynn 
Canal, leaving a portion of it on the British side of the boundary line." 
A careful examination svill make apparent the erroneous character of 
this statement. The westernmost point of L}^!!! Canal is approxi- 
mately in longitude 135° 34', while the census maps show the Vjound- 
ary as crossing the Chilkat River, exaggerated in breadth, not Lynn 
Canal, in longitude 136°. 

The United States has from the time of the cession of Alaska to the 
present day maintained but one interpretation of the treaty of 1825. 
Its position has been open and known to the world. It is the same 
which was presented to the Tribunal in its Case and which it now 
reiterates in tliis Counter Case. 

STATEMENT IN CONCLUSION. 

The United States, having reviewed the evidence produced in the 
British Case together with that herewith submitted, afhrms that such 
evidence fully substantiates the statement of facts set forth in the 
Case of the United States; and it, therefore, asserts that such facts 
are conclusively estal)lished, and that, in addition to thus continuing 
the declared position of the United States as to the meaning of 
Articles III, IV, and V of the treaty of 1825, this evidence further 
establishes the following: 

{(/) That the channel, described in Article III of the treaty of 1825 
as "Portland Channel,'' is not the narrow passage lying northward of 
Kamiaghanut and Sitklan islands and the passage lying north \v(^stward 
of Pearse and Wales islands; and that it was not the intention of the 
high contracting parties or the meaning of the treaty that the boundary 
line between the British and Kussian possessions on the Northwest 
Coast should l)e drawn through those passages. 

(h) That the course of the l)oundary line l)etween the head of Port- 
land Canal and the 5()th parallel of north latitude, as claimed in the 



STATEMENT IN CONCLrsioN ' 91 

British Case, is contrary to the intention of tiie iiiiih contractino- pur- 
ties to the treaty of 1825 and to the meaning of that treaty. 

(c) That the peaks of the mountains, which are adopted in tiie 
British Case as limiting the eastern and northern boundary of the 
Us/'e/'e^ are not "/if c/'efe de-s inont(Ui)ie>( sttuefS pavdUelement a la cote'''* 
referred to in Article III of thi^ trt'aty of 1825. 

{<1) That the words " cdte^^ and *' octan'' used in Articles III and IV 
of the treat}' in describing the lUiere were so used in their physical 
and not in their political sense; and that such was the intention of the 
hiuh contracting parties and the meaning of the treaty. 

(e) That the interpretation of Articles 111, IV and V of the treaty 
of 1825 by the United States since the cession of the territory in 
l.sOT. and by Russia prior thereto, has been uniformly and consist- 
ently maintained to the })resent time, and is the same interpretation 
set forth in the Case of the United States. 

i^f) That, until a comparatively recent period, the British and 
Canadian Governments, by their official acts, declarations, and publi- 
cations, interpreted the meaning of Article's 111, IV, and V of the 
treat}' of 1825 in accordance with the interpretation placed upon such 
articles by the United States and Russia. 

{<j) That Great Britain has admitted that the interpretation of the 
treaty of 1825 bv the United States and Russia is in accord with the 
intention of the high contracting parties to the treaty and with its 
meaning, in failing to enter official protest against the occupation by 
Russia, and sul)sequently by the United States, of the//.v<e/v% in accord- 
anee with such interpretation. 

(//) That the facts leading up to the treaty, the text of the instru- 
ment itself, the interpretation of it b}- the acts of the United States 
and of Russia which were acquiesced in by Great Britain, and the acts 
of Great Britain show that it was the original and eti'ective under- 
standing of the high contracting parties that, under the provisions of 
the treaty of 1825, Russia was to have a continuous strip of land u]ion 
the continent from the 5*>th parallel of north latitude to the Hist 
meridian of west longitude, l)oundingthe shoi-es of uU inlets and l)ays, 
and that the line of demarcation, when actually locatcnl upon the 
ground, was to be so drawn as to include within the territory of 
Russia all of the waters of such iidets and l»ays and of the shores 
boundino- them. 



92 COUNTER CASE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

(/) That His Hritiumic ^Majesty's GovermiUMit has never, until its 
Case was submitted to this Tribunal, ofheiaily declared a claim as to 
the manner in which the boundar}- line should be drawn lietween the 
Territory of Alaska and the Province of British Columbia, contrar}' to 
the interpretation placed upon the treaty of 1825 by the United States 
and Russia. 

(J) That the boundary line claimed in the British Case is at variance 
with and contradictory of the various interpretations of Articles 111, 
IV and V of the treaty of 1S25, which have been, from time to time, 
advanced by Canadian statesmen and writers, and which have formed 
the bases of various boundary lines appeai'ing upon certain maps pub- 
lished in Canada since 1885 and upon others pul)lished in Great Britain 
since 1898: 

(k) That the boundary line claimed in the British Case is in direct 
conflict with the evidence submitted to this Tribunal and is contrary 
to the manifest intention of the hig-h contracting- parties to the treaty 
of 1825 and to the meaning of such treat}'. 



The United States upon the facts established by the evidence sub- 
mitted in its Case and contirmed by the evidence adduced herein and 
in the British Case, and upon the further facts established as above 
set forth, reasserts its claims as to the answers and decisions which 
should be made by this Tril)unal to the questions propounded in 
Article IV of the treaty of January 21:, 1903, and repeats the specilic 
requests therefor, as set forth in the Case of the United States. 



ALASKAN BOUNDARY TRIBUNAL. 



riPPEXDIX 



TO THE 



mmW QSE OF THE [MTED STATES 



BEFORE THE 



TRIBUNAL CONVENED AT LONDON 



UNDER THE 



PROVISIOXS OF THE TREATY BETAVEEN THE UXrJ'EI) 

STATES OF AMERICA AND GREAT BRTl AIN 

CONCLUDED JANUARY 24, P»U3. 



WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 
19 8. 



CONTEXTS OF THE APPENDIX. 



Page. 

Papers relating to the lease of the //.sfV'/v to the Hudson's Bay Company 1 

Proposition in 1874 for survey of boundary 49 

Papers relating to the boundary on and navigation of the Stikine River 53 

The case of Peter Martin 87 

The Coast Survey reports sent to the British Government in 1883 88 

Report of a military reconnaissance in Alaska, made in 1883 by Lieutenant 

Schwatka 89 

Diplomatic correspondence of 1886 91 

The Dall-Dawson discussion 94 

Correspondence relative to the Reciprocity Conference of 1892 114 

Diplomatic correspondence subsequent to the adjournment of the Joint High 

Commission 124 

Extracts from debates in the Canadian Parliament 164 

Correspondence between U. S. Coast Survey and the Canadian minister of the 

Interior, 1888 174 

Extracts from British and Canadian publications 178 

Papers relating to occupation on Lynn Canal 212 

(ieograpliical and topographical information relative to southeastern Alaska: 

Portland and Pearso canals 237 

Maps and charts 243 

Miscellaneous 250 

^liscellaneous documents, etc 268 

III 



PAPERS RELATING TO THE LEASE OF THE LISIERE 
TO THE HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY. 



Rtjxrrt of Gorenioi' to Board of Directors of the RuMian American 
Company^ May 6", 1832^ No. 181. 

[Translation.! 

Schooner "Cadboro" of the Hudsoirs Bay Company arrived here on 
April 2*> with Mr. Ogden, a shareholder of this company, who estab- 
lished a new settlement at Naas (Observatory Inlet) and is the chief 
manager of the company's establishments to the north of the Columbia 
River. 

The true purpose of his visit was to have an interview with me and 
to persuade me that there was nothing- in the information diffused by 
the Americans that the Hudson's Bay Company trades lio.uor, guns 
and powder for furs and intends to establish a settlement within our 
boundary at Stachin. ]SIr. Ogden declared to me that with regard to 
a settlement at Stachin he had been telling on purpose to the Ameri- 
cans about this intention, and that as to trading in articles prohibited 
by the Convention he, Ogden, assured me that neither guns nor pow- 
der had been furnished to the Kolosh. As to liquors he had begun to 
sell some this year and reported this to his chiefs, not seeing any other 
means of crowding the Americans out of the straits. For it is the second 
year that he pays the Kolosh for furs twice and three times as much as 
the Americans (two and three blaidcets per river beaver), thus losing 
consideral)le sums, but sees that allowing the Americans to })ay in 
licpiors and tii"e ai'ms, it is not })ossible to ht)pe to crowd them out of 
this competition, and he therefore resolved in spite of the prohibition 
of the Convention, to pay in licpiors, however al)staining so far from 
selling the natives firearms. 

I have the honor to n^port this circumstance to the Board of Direct- 
ors and leave for it to decide if it is possible for us alone to keep to 
the strict fulfilment of the Convention when the British and Americans 
break it without any limitations and thus i-eap benefits of which we 
are depri\'cd. 

Mr. Ogden injured tiie AnuM-jcans (piite considerably this year in 
thivstniifs in the following way. IIa\ing always on hand at the new 
settlement of Naas and on the Columl)ia river a large* supply of wmh-- 
ch'AWiWsQ iov one year in advance {\hQ yearly expenditure of blankets 
is calculated at Naas at 8,000 and on the Columbia river Ho, 000) he 
sends three vessels to the straits to such localities where the Americans 
are putting in and begins to pay twice and three times as much as the 



2 LEASE OF THE LISIERE 

Anun'iciins who nevor hold out voiv loii<i- Imt hasten to leave the plaee 
and proceed to another, wherc^ they are innnediately followed by 
Oy-den's ships. His blankets are ])etter than those of the Americans, 
weigh 10^ pounds, and are dyed in dark blue, green, lig'lit ])lue, also 
striped, but no white ones; he has moreover a large quantity of old 
men's and women's woolen clothing of ])retty good material, old offi- 
cers' uniforms, coats, swallow tails, trousers, waistcoats, theatrical cos- 
tumes, renovated by tailors and ))ought ver}' cheap in London, so it 
looks as if he can pay very high for a river beaver. In the present 
year he succeeded, however, in ol)tHiiiing oidy 2,0(J0 beavers, hoping 
to increase the trade consideral)ly during the future years. The 
Americans, who had eleven vessels in the straits this .year, succeeded 
in obtaining about 12,000 river beavers, this success being due to their 
selling liquors and tire arms. 

It may he seen from this report why we cannot cooperate actively 
with the Hudson's Bay Company in the crowding out of the Ameri- 
cans; principally we have no merchandise: as to vessels, in time we 
will l)e al)le to scrape through; I repeat once more we need merchan- 
dise and l)etter than that of the British if possible, we need good col- 
ored and white blankets, various clothes and ornaments, cheap in 
value, but catching the eye of the Kolosh and not worse than those of 
the foreigners. Is the Company strong enough and does it deem it 
necessary to meddle in that trade, or is it willing to suti'er that the 
British and Americans should alone take advantage of trading in our 
possessions — this is not a matter for me to judge and I only report the 
circumstances in their true light, humbly requesting to be enlightened 
in a most detailed manner how to act. The hope that the Americans 
will cease to visit the straits at the expiration of the Con^■ention is, 
according to my opinion, a very illusory one. 

Mr. Ogden endeavored to get my consent for the estal)lishment of a 
settlement in Clarence Strait, i. e. within our boundary, which I natu- 
rally refused; he also hinted that they might in time occupy a conven- 
ient point on the Stachin river at a distance of 30 miles from the 
coast for trading purposes and that the Company Avould establish on 
their territory a settlement at Port Kssmiton(?) and on Queen Char- 
lotte Island. He I'epeated his proposition to supply us with merchan- 
dise to be ]xiid for with river beavers and received a negative answer, 
with the explanation that if the Hudson's Bay Company desires our 
cooperation against the Americans, it ought to take upon itself the 
obligation of supi)lying us with merchandise at advantageous condi- 
tions, so that we might be so much the more able to do without the 
Americans and unite our efforts with those of the Hudson's Bay Com- 
pany for the purpose of crowding out our rivals. It seems that ^Nlr. 
Ogden has written a letter in that sense to his chiefs and 1 suppose 
that the Hudson's Bay Company will again propose to the Board of 
Directors with regard to the su])])lying of our Colonies. In such a 
case my latest transactions with the Americans may serve to the Board 
of Directors as guidance in the determination of rates and conditions. 
In compliance with Mr. Ogden's recjuest I enclose herewith a letter 
from him to London for further delivery. He left the bay on May 
1st, receiving from me all hospitality and assistance that it was in my 
power to give him. 



TO THK HUDSON S BAY COMPANY. 3 

Report of Count J^\'!<.^('h'()<h\" 

[Tnuislation.] 

Actiiiii' upon the last iu)t(M)t' the Enolish Anil)a.s8ador foncernino'the 
8atisfac-ti()n of the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company which wasfoi"- 
wardcd by nic to the Minister of Finance, the latter sent me the reixji't 
of the F)oard of Directors of the Russian AuKM'ican Conipanv e.\i)lain- 
iuii'. that Kear-Admiral Baron Wranoell was already in coi'respondence 
with the Directoi's of tlie Hudson's Bay Company. From this corre- 
spondence it is evident that the Company would })c wiilino- to lease for 
a term of twent^v years or thereabouts, that part of our dominions, 
adjacent to their frontiers north and south of the river Stikine accept- 
ing in payment a certain number of furs 3'early. 

Our Company believes that, in order to avoid further causes of dis- 
cord it would l)e advisal)Ie to cede to the Hudson's Bay Company the 
exclusive right of trade on the shore of the continent between latitude 
54- 40' and the Cross Strait, for such annual payment in furs as would 
prevent our Com])aiiy fi-om sutiering any loss. The Hudson's \^i\x 
Company would gain therel)y in that it would get rid of a dangerous 
rival in its trade with the natives. That Company proposes more- 
over to proA'ide our Colonies at moderate prices with a full annual 
supj^lv of goods and victuals. For the tinal signing of the contract 
the Hudson's Bay Company will send one of its meml)ers in the middle 
of flanuarv to Berlin, on condition that our delegate shall meet him 
there. The Board of Directors of the Russian American Company 
suggests that in this w'ay the much disputed Stakine ailair may l)e set- 
tled in a mannei' satisfactory to both parties, 1)ut it has no right to 
decide independently or to sign any agreement without the special 
sanction of the Govennnent, which permission it now asks for. 

In reply to Count Kankreen, 1 said that from a political point of 
view the wish to establish friendly relations with the Hudson's Bay 
Company through the lease of the above-mentioned territory is. in my 
opinion, worthy of the fullest consideration. In attaining this end 
we should gain this advantage of doing away with all rivalry in the 
fur trade and of putting an end to the frequent occasions of friction 
with the Kiiglish and with the citizens of the United States of America 
which lia\'e already often led to unpleasant correspondence with those 
Governments. 

This agreement would especially be desirable l)ecause it would enable 
us to avoid all further explanations with the Government of the United 
States as to its ceaseless demands, disadvantageous to our inteivsts, 
for the renewal of Article IV of the Treaty of 1824, which granted to 
the American shi[)s the rigiit of free navigation for ten years in all the 
seas and straits, adjacent to our dominions on the northwest coast of 
America. 

The Minister of Finance thereupon wrote me that, as the ati'air 
does not admit of any delay. I might solicit Your Imjierial Majesty's 
order to send Kear-Adn)iral Baron A\'rangell to Ik'rlin. to negotiate 
with the delegate of the Hudson's Bay Comi)any. who will arrive 
then^ .Jamiarv 19 31st next. Prince Menshikov has no o))jection to 
Baron Wrangcdl's short absence of twenty-eight days. 

Count Nesselrode. 



«0n the original is written in the haml writing of Hi? hnperial Majesty: "To he 
executed." 



4 LEASE ,0F THE LISIERE 

Jlr. Simpson ft) Ijdrtnt A] raiKjiIL 

[TninslatiDii.] 

Dear Sik: Some of our Directors being absent during the holidays, 
it was inip()ssil)le to meet in order to consider your letter, dated 
Decem))er '1 1-i-th and received by us yesterday. Consequently 1 can 
give no ofiicial answer, hut as the time of my departure for America 
is drawing so near, that no further delay is possilde. J have seen the 
(Tovenior and those members of tin* Committee who are still in town 
and asked their })rivate opinion about the ])r()posal you make. 

Your tirst proposition concerning the cession of the right of trade 
on the shores of Cross Strait was understood here, judging by the 
high rental you name, to include the islands within the leased area. 
Perceiving now, however, that you are not willing to include Sitka 
and the coast north of Cross Strait, the Hudson's Hay Company is also 
ready to yield these two points. But such l)eing the new state of 
affairs, it is necessary to entei into the minutest considtn-ations and 
details as to fixing the rental sum and in order to guarantee that we 
shall l>e protected from all direct or indirect rivalry in trading in the 
leased territory. 

As to the Stakine affair we do not claim payment for any damage; 
we require nothing more than a just compensation for the material 
losses suffered, which I assure you, in all justice, were severe. You 
will believe me when I tell you that in 1833 a ship was kept busy in 
making the preliminary arrangements necessary for the estal)lishment 
of a settlement near our frontiers on the Stakine River and since 1834 
two ships with a crew of 80 men have been occupied in the same way. 
This crew was collected from various places a year ago and as the 
enterprise* failed, they were unemployed and a charge upon us, their 
keep and salaries etc., amounting to a considerable sum. As to the 
detention of our ship in the estuar}- of Stakine, it is proven by your 
declaration and other documents. Upon this point our respective 
Governments are already agreed and therefore it would be useless to 
argue further. 

In other respects too it seems that the Boards of our Companies are 
entirely of accord. It would be very unpleasant therefore if this one 
disputed ([uestion should prevent a further agreement and troul>le our 
respective friendly relations, profitable alike for both parties and 
which would, if relapsing into rivalry, be injurious to both. 

A definite conclusion on all these points can. 1 am sure, never ))e 
satisfactorily reached by correspondence. On the other hand, I think 
that several hours of personal conversation between you and me would 
deeidt* the affair. For this reason it is proposed that I leave for 
Berlin in time to arrive there on the last day of this month (new style), 
entrusted with a full power of attorney from the (iovernor and the 
Committee of the Hudson's Bay Company to draw up a contract with 
the Russian American Coni])any. I shall therefore hope to meet you 
there with similar powers on your part. 

No other consideration would induce me to leave P^ngland and make 
such a journey at such a time of the year, when every hour before 
starting for an eight month's sojourn in America is of value to us. 
This may prove how willing the Hudson's Ba}' Company is to make 
friends with the Russian American Company. Not knowing at what 
hotel I shall stay, I shall present myself to the English Andxissador 



TO THE HUDSON S BAY COMPANY 



whoi'O you c:in iiuiuirc' toi" in(\ I hcii you also to inform ^ our Amhas- 
srtdor of your arrival. Seeing- that 1 cannot stay in Berlin more than 
two (lays. 1 hope you will l)e al)le and will do your utmost to meet me 
there on Thursday January :U.st n. s. 

G. Simpson. 



Bdi'oii Wi'diKJrll to J[r. Siiiipxon. 
[Translation.] 

Hambi:r(;, J(iii>((ir>j 251 .Fehrndrij OtJi, 1SS9. 
To Mr. CxEOiKiE Simpson. 

Sir: Supplementing- the agreement we entered into in the name of 
the Russian American Company and the Hudson's Bay Company, I 
hereby agree that for the term of ten years beginning on fJune 1st, 
18-in, the Russian American Company shall not encourage foreigners 
to visit the northwest coast of America through the buying from them 
of diti'erent goods, excerpting those of which the Russian Colonies may 
be in urgent need, and those taken in payment for different works 
and buildings on the northwest coast of America, or unless it should 
be found necessary to buy a ship or a vessel for the service of the Rus- 
sian American Company. It is understood, that in ca-se a foreign ship 
should land in Russian dominions, on the north-west coast, for shelter 
from bad weather or for purposes of illicit trade and if in such case 
the Russian American Company had neither means, nor right of com- 
pelling this ship to cease the traffic and to depart, — this should not be 
made a pretext for the Hudson's Bay Company to withhold from the 
Russian American Companv' the rental agreed upon in exchange for 
the right ceded to the Company of trading on a certain portion of the 
continent. 

I am, Sir, yours trulj', Baron Wrangell. 



Mr. Sliiijmm to Baron Wrangdl. 

[Translation.] 

Hamburg, January 25 FJrraanj (J. IS.JO. 
To Baron \Vran(;ell. 

I beg to inform you that I have received your letter of the above 
date, about the agreement concluded between us. the Hudson's Bay 
Company and the Russian American Company. February (ith. 183J^ 
and I beg to reply that I am i)eifectly satistied with your assurance, 
that during the existence of this agreement the Russian American 
Company will not encourage any foreigners to visit the northwest 
coast for purposes of trading, and further: that the Hudson's Bay 
Company will not keep back or avoid paying the rent due to the Rus- 
sian American Company by agreement under the circumstance^^ men- 
tioned in your letter. 

1 am. Sir, Yours trulv, Simpson. 



6 lp:ase of thk lisikke 

Traiii^Jat'niii from fin linssidn of a Porhdii of Ariuli- I <f tin- Zjcose 

to fli, I/ikIso/i's Ihiij ( 'oiiij'Kitl/.^' 

Akticle I. It has been aorood that the liussian American Compain% 
having' the permission of the Russian Government, cedes or j>ives up 
to the Hudson's Bay Company for ten years, beginning- with June 1, 
1840, for connnercial establishments the coast (the ishmds exchided) 
and the interior portion of the land, belonging to His Majesty the 
Emperor of Russia, situated l)etween Cape Spencer, which forms the 
northwestern cape at tiie entrance of Cross Sound, and latiude 54 40', 
i. e. the whole of the coast of the continent and the interior part of 
the land, situated to the southeast of the line, traced from the above 
mentioned Cape Spencer to Fair Weather mountain, as well as exclu- 
sive trade in those places. And that the Russian American Compan}' 
will evacuate all posts or redoul)ts occupied by it at the present time 
on that coast and in the interior of the country above mentioned, and 
will not establish new redoul)ts and posts for a duration of ten years, 
nor send its officers, otticials, ships and A(\ssels for trading to the bays, 
inlets, mouth of rivers or lakes on the abo\e mentioned line of coast 
and interior country. And will have no relations whatever for trad- 
ing- with the Indians, living on that coast and in the interior of the 
country. And will not receive either in trade or in any other wa}' 
furs, skins of animals and other products of the above described con- 
tinental coast and interior of the countrv. 



lite Diredoi-x to the Ch'uf MdiuKjer (f tlie Russian Americcm Colonies, ^ 
Captain Ivan AntonorirJi Kupi-e[ian()f\ April 17. 1S39. JVo. 230. 

[Transliitioii.] 

You are cognizant through the dispatches of the Board of Directors, 
of the correspondence which arose on account of the claim of the Eng- 
lish Hudson's Bay Company, which demanded for the non-admission of 
one of her vessels into the Stickin River, compensation for damages to 
the amount of t':^2,ir)(» from the Russian American Company. 

The Board of Directors set up all possible evidence for the dismissal 
of the claim, but finally on account of a new^ demand from the English 
Minister, Mr. Milbank, an instruction was received on Oct. 15, 183S, 
from the Minister of Finances, the purport of which was that the Rus- 
sian American Company should come to an amicable understanding 
with the Hudson's Bay Company. 

The Board of Dii-ectors reported to tlx^ MinistiM-of Finance on Dec. 
20, that it was ready to come to an amicable understanding with the 
Hudson's Bay Com})any. on the basis stated in the above report, and that 
desiring- to enter into relation with it. in order to conciliate nuitual 
interests and prevent disagreeable encounters in the future, Rear- 
Admiral Baron Wrangell, member'of the Council of the Company, 
entered into correspondence with the Director of the Hudson's Bay 
(^ompany, for the pur])ose of facilitating ollicial negotiations 1)V pre- 
liminary private explanations. 

«The full text of the lease as produced by Great Britain will be found in the Brit- 
ish Case, Appendix, Vol. 1, page 153. 



TO THE HUDS()I«J S BAY COMPANY. 7 

riiis corrcspoiulciu-c disclosed that the Hudsoirs Bay C()in}>any. would 
ugToe to Icaso for a certain iiiiinltcr of years, foi' an aiimial ])ayiii('Mt in 
furs, a certain area of coutiuuous Kussiaii possessions in America, north 
and south of the Stickine, and at the same time it expressed its readi- 
ness to forward to oui' colonies for a moderate percentai4'e, full yearly 
supplies of merchandise and provisions; for better association and 
ao'reement with regard to this matter and for the amicable arrange- 
ment of the Stickine atlair, the Directors of the Hudson's Hay Company, 
proposed to send, at the l)eoinnino- of January of the current year, one 
of its members to Bei'lin or Hamburg, for the purpose of meeting a 
plenipotentiary of the Russian American Company, for a iinal agree- 
ment on new treaties. ^ 

'V\\v P)oai'(l of Directors, thinking that the de])atable (juestion might 
be satisfactorily settled for both sides, asked authorization to begin 
official transactions and conclude a contract on the basis proposed by 
this Board stating that Kear-Admiral Baron Wrangell agreed to take 
this mission upon himself. 

On .January Stli. the ^Minister of Finances informed the I^oard of 
Directors that, according to the report of the VJce-Chancellor. His 
Imperial ^Majesty express(Ml his approval of the proposition of this 
Board to enter upon an agreement with the Hudson's Bay Company, 
with regard to its indenmitication for the Stickine atl'air, as well as 
with regard to its leasing to it for a certain number of years, a certain 
area of our possessions contiguous to the British frontier to the north 
and south of the River Stickine, also to the sending of Baron Wrangell 
abroad for the tinal negotiations with a plenipotentiary of the Hudson's 
Bay Company. 

In compliance with this august will, Rear-Admiral Baron Wrangell, 
l)eing furnished with a power-of-attorney for putting of the above 
mentioned })roposition into execution, left St. Petersburg on January 
yth to go abroad, and having concluded at Hamburg an agreement 
with the plenipotentiary of the Hudson's Bay Company, Mr, Simpson, 
on January 25th, (February (Jth) forwarded this Act to the P)oai-d of 
Directors, and as an appendix to it, a copy of a letter of His Excellency 
to Mr. Simpson and the answer of the latter. 

Rear-Admiral Baron Wrangell executed with decided success the 
august will, lulling induced the plenipotentiary of the Hudson's Bay 
Company. Mr. Sim})s()n. to drop entirely the claim against th(> Russian 
American Company, with regard to the Stickine atfair. and in general 
concluding with Mr. Simpson, an agreement promising for the Russian 
American Company useful results, on account of combinations fully 
detailed in the copy ai)pended hereto, of the report of the Board of 
Directors to the ^linister of Finances of March 8d. No. 40. 

Informing you with regard to this, the Board of Directors has the 
honoi- to forward herewith a copy of the agreement concluded, in the 
English language, with the Hudson's Bay Company, with a translation 
into the Russian language, and copies of the sup})lementary letter of 
Rear-Admiral Baron ^\'l•an.^ell to Mr. Simpson and the hitter's answer 
to the same, for your guidance^ and exact and strict obseivance. laying 
special stress upon: 

7'V/.v/'. Leased to the Hudson's Bay Company for 1<> years, to ))egin 
on June 1, 1840, the coast (with the exception of the islands) and the 
inner portion of the territory belonging to Russia, situated l)etween 
Cape Spencer, forming the northwestern cape of the enti-ance to 



8 LEA8K OK THE LISIERK 

Cross Sound, iiiid huiliule .^-t 4(>'. i. o. the wliolc coast of the coiiti- 
iient anc'i interior part of the territory, as well as free iiavioation and 
trade in the waters of this eoast and interior portion of the territory, 
situated to the southeast of the line made from the above mentioned 
Cape Spencer to Fair Weather Mountain, as well as exclusive ti'ade in 
those localities, — order to be delivered to the Hudson's Bay Company 
by June 1, 1840, and l)y this time abolish all ])osts and redoubts occu- 
pied by us at present on that coast and in the interior of the above 
mentioned territory, takino- upon yourself the obljoation to see that all 
further contents of Article 1st of the aj^reement concluded with the 
Hudson's Hay Com})any ])e observed on the part of our colonial author- 
ities, institutions and otlicials subordinate to them, in the strict and 
full sense, not only for the sake of appearance, but in the very essence 
of the matter. The Board of Directors requests you, on the surrender 
of St. D3'onisius redoubt, (from whence you will take the arms, 
materials and merchandise as moval)le property which is not liable to 
surrender to the EnoUsh). to connuunicate in writing- to the Chief 
appointed by the Hudson's Bay Company, your o})inion as to the num- 
bers of the garrison necessary to be maintained at the redou))t for the 
purpose of keepino- the natives in due awe, in oi'der that the English, 
relying on too weak a force, should not tempt the savages to hostile 
attempts, the consequences of which may be injurious to them and to 
us. Endeavor to explain to the Kolosh, that we are friends with the 
English, in order that, knowing this, they should not attempt any evil 
designs against these latter. 

Executing in such a manner in all strictness and with due foresight 
Article 1 of the contract, you may nevertheless use (according to your 
opinion, and without losing sight of the advantages of the Russian 
American Comi)any) your right to carry on trade in, and maintain rela- 
tions with the islands and straits, according to Art. 2. By the terms 
of the latter, the English have not the right to trade sea-otters from 
hunters in the waters of our possessions, nor otters nor river- beaver 
caught within our frontiers. The Russian American Company must 
not purchase the furs of animals caught on the territory ceded to the 
English. 

/Second. The Hudson's Bav Company, for the above mentioned part 
of our possessions leased to it, ol»ligated itself every year to pay or 
deliver to the Russian American Company as payment for the lease 
:20()i) seasoned land otter skins, (not including cub or damagiKl skins) 
caught on the western side of the Rocky Mountains, the first delivery 
of the 2000 otters to be made on June 1st or before this date in 1841;^ 
in addition to this, it consented to sell to the Russian American Com- 
pany during 10 years: — 

(a) all the seasoned land otter skins that may be colU^-tt^d on the 
western side of the Rocky ^lountains. not to exceed 2000 skins at the 
rate of 28 shillings stei'ling, and, 

(b) 8000 s(\ison(Ml land otter skins caught on the eastern side of the 
Rocky Mountains, at the rate of ;)2 shillings per skin, with delivery 
of the 2000 otter skins sold to the agent of the Russian American Com- 
pany on the N. \V. coast. The first delivery of the skins that are to be 
sold shall also be made on June 1st or earlier in 1841 and further deliv- 
eries on June 1st or earlier of the next years. You Avill not fail to 
take the necessary and appropriate steps with regard to the acceptance 



TO TH^ Hudson's bay company. 9 

oil this account of those otters I'roni the Iliulsoirs Buy C'c^inpany and 
their transportiition to Okhotsk, with other furs. 

Third. Take the necessary steps for the reception from the Iludsoir.s 
Bay Company, of whetit and other provisions, in the quantity and at 
the prices mentioned in Art. 4, of the ag-reeinent; l)ut if. on account 
of some unforeseen circumstance, the Hudson's Bay Company should 
not l)e able to fulfil this part of the contract, you may send one of our 
folonial vessels to the southern coasts for the purchase of these sup- 
plies through the intermediary of an agent of the Hudson's Bay Com- 
pany; all the extra expenses that may he incurred by such a circum- 
stance, (for the sending of our vessel and commands, their maintenance 
and the purchase of the supi)lies). shall l)e paid by the Hudson's Bay 
Com])any. with the exception of such case when there may tie lack of 
(butter) (Maslo) with regard to which the i^oard of Directors will 
issue special instructions. 

Fourth. Payment for the otters, as per Art. 8: payuKMit for the 
wheat, as per Art. 4; payment for the freighting of the merchandise, 
as per Art. 5, of the agreement concluded with the Hudson's Bay Com- 
pany; and payment for vai'ious purchases that may be made from time 
to time, shall be made to that Comj^any as the al)ove mentioned otters, 
wheat and other pi'ovisions. merchandise, freight, and other articles 
shall have been delivered to our agent at Ft. Simpson, at Sitka, or at 
such other locality of the northwestern coast to the north of Ft. Simp- 
son, bv means of a tri})licate note from our colonial authorities in the 
name of the Directors of the Russian American Company in St. Petei's- 
burg, in favor of the (xovernor, Vice-Governor and Committee of the 
Hudson's Bav Company, the payment to be made sixt}' days after 
presentation. 

Pointing out the princii)al articles of the agreement concluded with 
the Hudson's Bay Company, the Board of Directors hopes that these as 
well as the other articles of this agreement will be observed and main- 
tained according to the full meaning of its present contents, for the 
avoidance of any complaints which miglit give a pretext for unjileasant 
consecjuences. If, through ignorance, misunderstanding.or as is wholly 
uidikely, with intention on the part of the English, the agreement 
concluded should be broken in anj^ way, endeavor, without taking- 
recourse to violent measures, to remove the misunderstanding- by 
means of correspondence or personal interviews with the authorities, 
infoi-ming the Board of Directors of all such negotiations or incidents, 
g-iving full details, and forwarding the necessary proofs and documents. 

N. PlJOKOl'VKKF. 

A. Sevkkix. 

PJr'rfnrs. 



Till- (rdiuriior iif fhi Hiiss/iiii AiU( ricitii (\il<in''i s fi> Mr.-h>hn />(>iii/I,is. 

[Tninsliition.l 
NoHTII-WKSTKKN COAST OF AMERICA. 

I'orf Xr>r-Arrh(ij><jrl. Xore//ibrr 03, IS.'/K 
Dkak Sik: I had the honor of rec(M\ing your letter of August l'4. 
of the current vear from Taku. and in answer to this 1 deem it mv 



10 LEA>^E OF THE LISIERE 

duty to inform you tluit I find your instructions o-iveii to your g-ontle- 
nien iit Stuchin and Taku in entire cont'orniity with the ag-reements 
which were conchided between us during your stay here; it remains 
now to hope that these agreements may be kept sacredly for our 
mutual advantage. — You may rest entirely assured, dear Sir, that on 
the part of the Russian American Company and its Agents nothing is 
being done that can in any case infringe upon the rights which it con- 
ceded to you by contract for which I, as tiie guardian of its operations 
appointed l)y Imperial order, do vouch. — I am at the same time fuil}^ 
convinced that the Hudson's Bay Company will not wish to appropri- 
ate rights which do not belong to it, — and I therefore deeui it my 
duty to dwell somewhat in my answer on that part of your letter 
where you mention your unsuccessful trading visit to Cross- Sound. 

You say: "The Kolosh (Indians) declared that they had sold all 
their sea-beavers and land furs to your steamer, and should this be 
confirmed this single case is sufficient for withholding payment of the 
lease.'' 1 avow that 1 did not expect any such suuunary sentence from 
you. especially as you are not quite sure that the Indians you met with 
belong to some continental tribe, which fact (if they really l)el()nged 
to inhabitants living in the vicinity of Cross Sound, which, among 
others, you have not explained in your letter) allow me to doubt, for, 
as far as I know l>v my long residence (28 years) in this country, there 
are no other inhal)itants in the vicinity of Cross Sound except those 
who ha\'e their permanent abode on the northern coast of the island 
of Sitka. 

Not entering fui'ther into the examination of our mutual rights, — I 
have the honor to inform you of the following facts: our steamer 
during her trading trip this summer through the straits did not have 
any conununications with any of the continental tribes l)elonging to 
you; — the oidy point where she traded is the small harbor of Aya near 
Cape Bingham on the northwestern coast of the island of Sitka with 
a ti-il)e calling itself Kkhu-tsetl-khwan. This people hunts along the 
coast of Ltuya (Port Fran^ais) and farther to the north up to Yakutat 
(Bering Bay). The sea otters, forming their greatest trade, as well 
as a small ([uantity of otters, they obtain themselves, as already said, 
in our waters; land animal furs which may be had from them in small 
quantities at times, they ol^tain by purchase, trading them for sea 
otters, partly fi'om the Yakutat people who go every year for tradt^ to 
the I'galakhnuite ti'ibe which iidial)its the very l)a('kwoods of our pos- 
sessions near the Chugat Bay (Prince* William's Sound), and partly in 
the same way from the Chilcat, Hootznoo and other Kolosh; it is undis- 
putable that from among these furs those coming from Chilcat ])elong 
to you: 1 understood the matter so and these furs have always and 
will always be kept for you. — In the vicinity of Cross Sound proper, 
on the southern as well as on the noi'thern coasts, there are no animals 
constituting the trade with the Indians and consequently there is no 
hunt whatever luM'e, oidy occasionally may some stray otter t)e met 
with. 

I mentioned al)ove that near Cross Sound along the continental coast 
from Cape Spencer to Lynn Canal- there are no tribes or ])ermanent 
settlements (with the exception of 4 or .5 huts (wigwams) situated on a 
small island near this coast, or some iiomud'tc Indians who oidy tempo- 
rarily put in at this coast on their journey); if tin* Indians told 3'ou 



TO THE Hudson's bay company. 11 

otherwise, 1 will say rinnly that it is a downriulit untruth, as is in gen- 
eral the g"roater part of information nn-eived from the Kolosli who are. 
on account of their iiuiate (lu})licity, always ready to tell you one thing 
and another to us, if not for the ])urpose of gaining some advantage, 
then from their unsurmountaMe propensity for lying.— ^ As you refer 
in your lettei- to the settlement of Kaknau, 1 ha\e the honor to ex])lain 
to you that this settlement did realh' exist some 15 years ago, ))ut it 
has been abandoned since then; part of the inhabitants migrated to 
Chilcat. the river Okoi (between Ltuya and the Bering Bay) and other 
places; the hereditary elder went with part of his jjeople to the island 
of Sitka near the New-Archangel yjort, but the greatest part of all has 
been killed in the war with the Stachin people. There remains at 
present only the name of this settlement and you may see there every 
8 years for sev(M-al days the remaining population which asseml)les 
there from various localities of their present abodes for the commemo- 
ration of their d(»ad relatives according to the Kolosh custom. 

Such is the information I possess on Cross Sound and 1 could never 
imagine that any one should dispute our rights to trade with the natives. 
I agreed with you at your visit here, when Tongas was in ciuestion, 
and I hope that you will agree with me when you will be convinced of 
what 1 said to you a])Out Cross Sound; even in the case of some conti- 
nental tribe being here. I do not see why we should not ha\'e the same 
right here as you have in Tongas the circumstances being the same. 
To Cross Sound flow all the furs from the Russian possessions and to 
Tongas from the English. The principal foundation of the Treat v 
between the two companies explains all the remainder: the continental 
coast (of our possessions) from Cape Spencer and farther to the South- 
east, as well as the interior of that part of the Continent with all its 
tribes and exclusive trade with them ])elong to you while the islands 
remain ours as heretofore. 

During your short sta}' at New-Archangel, it was not possible to 
foresee and expound all the conditions of the Kolosh trade, this is why 
I deem it indispensable to ask you. dear Sir, (hearing that you intend 
to come to the straits) if you do not foresee the possibility to honor 
me by a second visit for a personal interview and ru^gotiations. I am 
fullv convinced that after this explanation no misunderstandings will 
arise any more between us with regard to the trade with the Kolosh. 
Should circumstances hinder you from coming to New-Archangel. 1 
am ready to come for a personal interview with you to any point in 
our straits which you nu'ght find convenient. I can give to it some 
time between SeptemlxM- 1. and April 1, therefore I beg of you to 
inform me now of your intention. 

1 entrusted Captain Lindenberg, who is so well ac<iuainted by expe- 
rience with the whole procedure of our trade with the Kolosh. to 
explain it to you and to give you all the information you might desire 
on this subject; I instructed him at the same time, as the man in 
charge of our trade in the straits, for the contimiity of friendly rela- 
tions between the Russian American Company and the Hudson's Bay 
Company, to assure you of our ever most \)nvo intentions and good 
faith towards the English. — 1 am sending with him to b(> delivered to 
you ^/// //ir /ri/ir/ f>//:s wh'ivh lic traded last sununcu" in Cross Sound 
which will remain in your hands until further agreement on the subject. 

For your guidance I am forwarding to you our rates on all furs in 
general, bought last summer by Mr. Lindenberg in the Straits, as well 



12 LEASE OF THE LISIERE 

as of the furs puichased in Sitkti beginning with June 1. until October 
1. of the current yeav. You may ascertain from these lists the insig-- 
niticance of our ti'ade with the Kolosh. whicli at the present time, does 
not form even 1 1<) of our former trade, — in one word, the aboNc men- 
tioned furs constitute the whole protit of the Russian-American Com- 
pany on the northwestern coast of America! During- the whole of last 
summer not one Kolosh came here from the English possessions and 
even not one canoe of the Keku or Henegau Kolosh who foi-merly 
alwaj's visited New-Archangel for trade; — there were also not more 
than two or three canoes from the Hootznoo Kolosh. I see from your 
Kolosh rates, transmitted to me l\v Mr. Kennedy, that you pay them 
more for furs than we do and if we are not going to keep to the same 
rates we will be forced to lose even the small numl)er of furs which we 
collect at present! After June 1, tlu'i'e came oidy one canoe here from 
Chilcat, from which we bought 18 river l)eavers (sent to you with the 
last stt'amer). It is clear that it is more protitable for the Kolosh to 
trade with the English on account of the prices paid by them. 

I close this letter with the information that the last news received 
b}^ me from St. Petersburg through Okhotsk date as far back as April 
15. Perfect peace reigns in Europe and the important atiairs in the 
East which occupied the Cabinets of the tirst class Powers are coming 
to the wished for end of order and concord. 

I beg of you to forward to ^Ir. John McLaughlin my letter to him 
herewith enclosed. 

In expectation of having the pleasure to receive a communication 
from 3"ou, I have the honor, to l)e with perfect esteem, dear Sir, Your 
humble servant, 

(s'g'd) A. Etholine, 

('<i)>t<((ii of the Iniperial Fleet, Knight and Governor 
of the Russian Colonies in America. 

To Mr. John Doucjlas, 

Agent <f the Hudson's Bay Coinjxiny. 



Russian An}t'rican Comjxinij to Jlinister of Finance 

[Translation] 

Russian American Company, Hoard of Directors, 

I)ecend>er 17th, 18^8. Xo 1519. 

Concerning the renewal of the agreement with the Hudson's Bay 
Company, with plan attached. 

To His Excellency T'he Minister of Finance, Private Councillor and 
Knight. Feodor Paa lovitch Vrontchenko. 

Hy His Ahijesty's order, which was announced to the Board of Direct- 
ors on January 8th, 1839, (No. 7-1) by Your Excellency's predecessor, 
the Russian American Company and the Hudson's Bay Com})any, which 
claimed damages for the loss ai"ising out of the non-admission of a 
vessel, belonging to the latter Company, to the Stakine river, con- 
cluded an agreement for lease, for a fixed term, of a part of our 
possessions contiguous to the English frontier northwards and south- 
wards from the Stakine river. 

This agreement, concluded i)y Rear Admiral Baron \\'rangel and 



TO THE Hudson's bay comi'anv. 13 

Sir Simpson as representatives of the two Companies, on .laniiaiv 
25 F('l)i'uarv (i, is;*)!*, for t(Mi years, beg-innino- from .lunc 1st, 1S4(), 
was iipprovod l)v His Majestv, as announced l)v vour predecessor to 
the Board of Directors on May ISth, 18:^9. (No. 2523). 

The results of this agreement were that our Company was relieved 
of the o})lio-iition to pay a ver}' considerable sum to the Hudson's Bay 
Company and that all the causes of disagreement between the com- 
panies' agents were removed. Reciprocal feelings of hostility which 
are so dangerous in these remote countries, were changed into a feel- 
ing' of friendship and it was understood that services should be ren- 
dered and civility be shown by each Company to the other. Moreover, 
as the State Chancellor of th'e Foreign Office had surmised would be 
the case, the United States ceased their constant solicitations for the 
renewal of the 4th Article of the Convention of 1824, granting to 
American ships the right of free navigation in the seas and straits of 
our possessions. 

The agreement expires on May 31, 1850, but in the current year the 
Directors of the Hudson's Bay Company entered into correspondence 
with the Board of Directors regarding the renewal of the agreement 
for a term of nine years, until May 31, 1859; ui)on which date the 
franchise of the Hudson's Bay Company expires. 

In the opinion of both Companies it was thought wise to renew the 
agreement on the previous conditions with certain changes, made 
absolutely necessary by altered circumstances and mutually beneficial 
to both Companies. 

The principal reason of the Board for desiring the renewal of the 
agreement is the wish to maintain friendly relations between the Com- 
panies. This seems to be particularly necessary at the pi'esent time. 
It seems certain too that unless such friendly relations be maintained 
it will ])v impossible to avoid such hostilities and conflicts, as would 
not only have a bad influence on the afi'airs of the American Com])any, 
but might also lead to unpleasant correspondence between our (lov- 
ermnent and that of England. 

Belying upon all these considerations, the Board of Directors, hav- 
ing first obtained the assent of the (xeneral Meeting of the Sharehold- 
ers, has the honor of asking Your Excellency to use your good offices 
in order that the Company may o])tain permission for the renewal of 
the agreement with the Hudson's Bay Company for mno years, until 
Ma}' 31, 1859, according to the plan hereto annexed which is in the 
same form as that approved of l)y the Ceneral Meeting of the Share- 
holders and adopted l)y the Dii'ectors of the Hudson's Bay Company. 

For the President: 

V. POLITKOVSKY. 



Jj/'rrcfor Zacirlrjskf/ to l)ti'('ct<)r>< of Ruman Ametncan Compmn/. 

[Translation] 

January 29. 184!t No. <;(»4. 
To the Board of Directors of the Russian American Company. 

On December ITth. 1848. (1519), the Board of Directors of the 
Company applied to the ]Minister of Finance to obtain the permission 
for the renewal, for nine 3'ears, of the agreement ])etween the Hussian 

20626— AP 2 



14 lp:asp: of try, lisiere 

AnKMiciin and the English Hudsoirs B'd\ Companies, for the lease of a 
part of our possessions in America. 

The Minister of Finance communicated this application to the State 
Chancellor, who ])resently informed him that, acting- on his report, 
dated rianuarv tlu> '2'2n(.\. llis Majesty was pleased to sanction the said 
proposal of the Jioard of Directors of the Russian American Company'. 

The Department of Trade and ^Manufactures has the honor of 
informing- the Board of Directors in order that the necessary arrange- 
ments may be made. 

For the Director: 

Zacielejsky. 



Memorinl of Coimt Ncxi<iAr(>(le, Jan wiry 23^ ISoIf.. 

[Translation.] 

The Board of Directors of the Russian American Company made a 
report concerning the necessit}' of adopting measures for protecting 
the Company's possessions from the danger they would be exposed to 
in case of a rupture between Russia and Great Britain. 

On the North-Western coast of America and on the Island of Sitka, 
wdiere a great part of the Company's property is concentrated, the 
Company has not at its disposal means of defense suthcient to sustain 
the attack of a I^ritish squadron. The Board of Directors therefore 
thought it advisable to enter into direct communication with the Hud- 
son's Bay Compan3% whose settlement is close to our own; and 
invite that Company to o])tain from the British Government a grant 
of neutrality for the ships of both Companies and their possessions on 
the North-West coast of America. Judging from the statements of 
the agents of the Hudson's Bay Company made when the lease to that 
Company of a strip of land, a part of our possessions, was negotiated, 
there is reason to believe that they will use their utmost endeavors to 
obtain the proposed grant of neutrality, especially since the condition 
of that Com})any is inferior to ours. 

Finding that it would be advantageous in the present political situ- 
ation to carry th(> proposal of the Russian American Company into 
effect, 1 take the libert}' of asking wdiether Your Imperial Majesty is 
willing to allow such a proceeding, upon the condition that, when both 
companies shall have come to a nmtual understanding upon the mat- 
ter it shall be presented by them for the approval of their respective 
Governments. 

Cou^T Nesselkode. 

Note. — His Majesty ordered this to be done. 

St. Petersburg, January £i, ISo.'^. 



Senator Senlanio^ to Major- (rene rat J'ot Itlorsli/. Chan-irian of Board 
(f Dtrectors (f liuxKiati Aiacrtcan Coinjxiny. 

[Translation.] 

March 31, 1851. No. 1072. 
The Imperial Ministry has had the honor of laying before His Impe- 
rial Majesty the letter you addressed to Mr. Colville. Director of the 



TO THE Hudson's bay company. 15 

Britisli Iludsoirs Buy C()iiH);uiv. as wt'll as the orioiiial copy of the lot- 
liu- dated March the 2i!nd," in whicli ]\lr. Addiiiiitoii has iiit'ornicd the 
Com})aiiy, by order of the Chief Secretary of State of Her Britannic 
Majesty, that Her Majesty-s Government bound itself on condition of 
reciprocity, to respect (hiring- the continuance of the war, the posses- 
sions of the Russian An)erican Company, but that this territorial neu- 
trality should not extend to ships of the Company on the hiiih seas and 
that lli'r Majesty's Cruisers should have the rioht of s(Mzin<;- them and 
their car'^oes and of blockadino- their })orts and shores 

Considering- the peculiar position of the Russian Coh)nies in Amer- 
ica, His lmi)erial Majesty graciously charged mc; to inform you. that 
the lm[)erial CTOvernment, likewise, acknowledges this neutrality of 
the territorial possessions of the Hudson's Bay Compan}- in America 
and it agrees not to attack them during- the continuance of this war, 
but it also reseryes the right for its Cruisers of seizing the ships and 
cargoes of the afore-mentioned Coiupany on the high sea. as well of 
l)locka(ling their shores and ports. 

Will you please inform the Board of Directors of the Hudson's Bay 
Company, that due orders will l)e given without delay to all Imperial 
Authorities to carry out and to cause others to carry out this order of 
His Imperial Majesty, which renders operative the tentative ol)lig-a- 
tions taken by the British Government concerning the territorial pos- 
sessions of the Russian American Company. 



JIhiisfrr of Finance to Adin'n'nl <>f FU-tt. 

[Translation.] 

Ministry of Finance, 
Department of Trade and Commerce, 

Ajyril 8th, 18oJ^. No. 1759. 
To His Imperial Highness Lord High Admiral of the Fleet. 

In January last, the Minister for Foreign AHairs wrote to me to 
the ert'ect: 

1st: That the Board of Directors of the Russian American Company 
had set forth the necessity of taking proper steps for the protection 
of its territories from attack, should hostilities with England threaten 
its dominions, and at the same time pointed out the fact, that the 
North Western coast of America and the island of Sitka, — where the 
Company's chief p()ss(\ssions are, — were insutKciently protected to 
witlistaiid an attack from the English squadron. The Board there- 
fore thought it wise to apply to the adjacent English Hudson's Bay 
Com])any. begging it to secure from its own govin'iuncnt a d(>claration 
of nmitrality for the possessions and ships of both Companies. Judg*- 
ing by the expressions of the ag'cnts of the Hudson's Bay Company at 
the time of the lease of the strip of land \\\ our possession, we may 
rely u])on their utmost endeavours to secure the gi'ant of neutrality — 
its position being much weaker than our own. 

2nd. That the Chancellor of State, provided he ap)iroved. and more- 
over found the Russian American Company's proposals wise in the 
])resent state of political aH'airs.^ should ha\e the honor of re))ortino- 
the same to His Imperial Majesty and when His Majesty should have 

" See i>fM page 18. 



10) LEASE OF THE LISIERE 

^•niciously sunctioned those proposals, the State Chancellor was to 
inforiii the Russian American Company that with the approval of the 
Hudson's Bay Company, that Company should also solicit its Govern- 
ment to accept the proposals. The Russian American Company was 
informed of the fact. 

At present the ^Minister for Foreion Affairs has informed me (1st) 
that the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Russian American 
Company has received from the Directors of the Hudson's Bay Com- 
pany an answer," written ])y the Secretary of State for Foreion Atiairs, 
Mr." Addinoton, by order of the Chief Secretary of State, to the fol- 
lowing eti'ect — that the Eng-lish Govermnent willinoly sanctioned the 
neutrality of the possessions of both Companies on the American 
coast, adding thereto, that the said neutrality does not extend to the 
ships of the Russian xVmerican Company on the high seas and that 
eventually the harl)ors and shores of the Company may be su])jected to 
a blocade; {'2nd) that His Imperial Majesty, in accordance Avith this 
report has graciously permitted our Government to consent to the 
neutrality of the possessions of the Hudson's Bay Company l)ut on 
the same conditions, these facts have been duly presented to the Com- 
pany for propel' consideration. 

The Privy Councillor Seniavine has forwarded to me. with His 
Majesty's sanction, a copy of the document for the Chairman of the 
Board of Directors of the Russian American Company, with data for 
carrying out this resolution. 

Having informed the Governor-Cieneral of Eastern Siberia of all 
the al)ove-mentioned facts 1 have the honor of laying them before 
Your Imperial Highness, enclosing a c()i)y of the document and th(^ 
report of tlu' Minister for Foreign ^Vtfairs. 

Secretarv of State. P. Brock. 



Board of Diri^ciorx of Rn^)<ian American (oni/HUiy to Chnf MaiKKjcr 

of Colonics. 

[[Translation] 

April 16, 1854. No. 395. 
To Post-Ciptain and Knight Stefan Vasilvitch Voevodski, 

(Jli'uf JSLaiuKjer of tlw RuHx'um American Colon'wx. 

As a supplement to its despatcii of January 14, 1854, the Board of 
Directors enclosc^s hei'ewith copies of the rei)lies of Privy Councillor 
Seniavin. Assistant Ministtn- of Foreign Atiairs, and of the Secretary 
of State for Foreign Atiairs, Addington, from which Your Excellency 
will see that our (iovernment and that of England have recognized the 
neutrality of the two Companies during the present war, and, therefore, 
the property of the Company on the coast may be regarded as safe. 

In comnnmicating this to Your Excellency, the Board of Directors 
instructs you to take such measures as, upon the closest examination 
on the spot, you may lind })racti<'able. for the security of the Com- 
pany's pi-operty on board ship and on the passage from the Districts. 

The Board of Dir(>ctors, on its part, intends to send to the Colonies, 
for your us(> in this year's na\igation. a screw steamer belonging to 
the Coni])any, but furnished with llanil)urg papers and flag, to be 
used in the Company's business. 

«Seepos< page 18. 



TO THK HIDSON's BAY COMPANY. 17 

111 iuldition to this, tlu' Hoard of Directors, for the pur[)ose of su})- 
})lvino- its ves.seLs with neutral tlai>s, has sold (accord in<i' to their 
papers) the vessels Niciiohis. Sitka and Kamchatka, and it. conse- 
quently. ])iaces part or all of these vessels at your disposal, to be sent 
to vSun Francisco, if there is any necessit}' for it, for which 3-ou must 
select a .safe time, to wit, the autumn, when the presence of hostile 
cruisers on the sea is not to be expected. At San Francisco, these 
vessels w'ill receive neutral liao-s and papers, in accordance with an 
arran.o-ement mad(^ to that etl'ect, and, under these neutral flag's, these 
vessids may be employed at your discretion, for voyages outside of 
the Colonies, 

At the same time, you are instructed to keep in view the fact that, 
these vessels, being under a neutral flag, must perform their voyages 
under the instructions of the hrm to which, according to their papers, 
they have been sokl; and, hence, w'hen sending any of these vessels to 
San Francisco, you will have to give information to Mr. Kostromiti- 
nort' as to the voyages which have been assigned to the vessels by vou; 
and Kostromitinotf will see that the vessels receive the proper docu- 
ments from the lirni to which they are supposed to ]>elong. 

With regard to your relations with the Hudson's Bay Company, the 
Board of Directors reciuests you to remember that those relations 
must remain friendly, as heretofore, and that, as the Hudson's Bay 
Companv co-operated ethciently with us in the attainment of the neu- 
trality of our possessions, it is proper for the Colonial Government 
to be particularly obliging in its intercourse with the agents of the 
Hudson's Bay Companv, and to show them all possible courtesy in all 
matters. 

In conclusion, the Board of Directors hopes that, during the con- 
tinuance of the war with England, when the external activity of the 
Companv must necessarily l)e greatly diminished. Your Excellency 
will ])ay special attention to the development in the colonies of the 
ice. luml)er and stone industries, as those articles can always be 
exported from the colonies in foreign vessels. 

V. Kasiiirin, C/ialrman. 
A. Etholine. 
F. Wkaxgel. 



[Enclosure.] 

SSt. Petersbi'kc;, Murdi Jl, ]i>54- 

Sik: The IiuiH'rial Minister lias had tlie honor to bring to the knowledge of His 
.Ahijesty the Knipemr the letter addressed to yon by Mr. CVdville, Director of the 
Knglisli Ihidson's P>ay C'oini)any, ami the certified copy of that dated .^hll•(•h '12 last, 
in which .Mr. Addington informed him, in the name of the Princiiial Secretary of 
State of Her Jiritannic ^hijesty, that the (.iovernment of the Qneen, on condition of 
reciprocity, nndertonk to canse the possessions? of the Russian American Company to 
be respected during the whole continuance of the war; l)ut that that territorial neu- 
trality woulil not l)e extended to the Company's vessels which might be met on the 
high "seas by Her P.ritannic ^htjesty's cruisers, 'which would be authorized to capture 
them with their cargoes, and which would have the right to blockade its coasts and 
ports. 

His Imperial Majesty, taking into consideration the peculiar situation of the Rus- 
sian colonies in America, has deigned to authorize me to inform you. Sir, that, as a 
matter fjf reciprocity, the Imperial (Jovernment permits the neutrality of the terri- 
torial possessions of the Hudson's Bay Company in America, and engages not to 
cause them to be attacked during the whole continuance of the war, but that he like- 
wise reserves to his cruisers the right to seize .such vessels of the said Company, as 



18 LKASE OF THE LISIERE 

they may meet on tlic lii^'li seas, ami to caiitiiie them and theii cargoes, as well as 
to l)loeka<le its eoast and jiorts. 

Flave the goodness, Sir, to inform tlie Directory of the Hudson's? Bay Company 
that the net'essary orders will be given innuediately to all the Imperial Authorities, to 
execute and cause to be executed, so far as they are concerned, these determinations 
of His Imperial ^Majesty, which render detiuitive tlie engagements taken condition- 
ally by the I.ritish Government with regard to the Russian Anierican possessions. 
Accej)t, Sir, the assurance, etc., 

(The original is signed): Lkox Skmavine. 

Major-deneral Poi.itk'owski, 

President of llie Direchiri/ of tlie llnssidii American Vonipartn. 



[Enclosure.] 



FoKEiGN Office, March 32, 1854- 

Sir: I am directed by the Earl of Clarendon to acknowledge the receipt of your 
letter of the 28th of February, enclosing a copy of a letter from the Russian Ameri- 
can Company, suggesting that an arrangement should be entered into for a state of 
neutrality being observed as regards the possessions and ships of the Hudson's Bay 
Company and the Russian American Companx on the North West coast of America. 

You state that it would ])e satisfactory to the (iovernorand Conunittee of the 
Hudson's Bay Company if some such arrangements as that suggested could be made, 
as it would relieve them from anxiety and risk. 

I a!ii to state to you in reply that, under the i)eculiar circumstances of the case, 
Her JNIajesty's v-fovernment will consent to the j)roposed arrangement being entered 
into between the two CVjmpanies, and instructions will, accordingly, be given to Her 
Majesty's Naval Officers and others not to connnit hostilities on land within the 
Russian dominions on the coast of America. 

I am to add, however, that the proposed neutrality will as far as Her Majesty's 
Government is (■oncerned, be territorial only, and confined to the land, and that its 
operation will not extend to the high seas, but that all Russian ves.sels and goods 
thereon, whether the property of the Company, of the Government or of individuals, 
and whether going to or from the possessions of the Russian American Coni]>any, 
will be liable to cai)ture by Her Majesty's shij^s, and that the coasts and jxjrts of 
those possessions will be liable to naval t)lockade. 

I am. Sir, your most obedient lunnble servant, 

H. U. Addixgton. 

(Not Addressed). 

A true copy with the Governor of the Hudson's Bay Company. 



Depufi/ (rovcrtun' of /fudson^s Bay Company to the Directors of the- 
liiix'^kui American Company. 

Hudson's Bay House. 

London. May IGth. ISoJ^. 
To the DiKECTOHS of the Kussiax American Company, 

8t. Petershm/. 
Gentlemen: I have the honor to aeknowkHlge the receipt of your 
letter of the 5 iTth ultimo trtinsiiiittiuo' u copy of a coinniuiiicatiou 
from Mr. Leon Seniavine the A.ssisttuit Minister for P\)reio-n A Hairs 
to the President of the Russian American Com])any, containiiio- the 
concurrence of His imperial ^Majesty to the pnjposed neutrality on 
t he North-West coast of America upon the same conditions as those 
assented to by Her ^lajesty's Government. 

The Hudson's Bay Company lost no time in comnumicatino- this 
information to the Foreign Office in order that the necessary instruc- 
tions mioht ])c oivon to carry out this arranoement and I be"' to assure 



TO THE Hudson's bay company, 19 

vou, that it is ulwuvs our wish to rocii)ro(';ito those ft'clinos of aiiiity 
and good imdcrstandiiiu- so ossentiiil to the interests of the two Com- 
panies. 

I ha\(' the honor etc., John SiiKrHEKO, 

Df'jjiitij (rormmr. 



Ripoi't of Boil I'd of D'n'i'C'toi'H of Iiiis.si((ii Aiio'i'teaii Coinjximj^ Ortohcl' 

21^ ISoo. 

[Transhition.] 

To His Imperial Majesty. 

REPORT OF THE l$OARl) OF DIRECTORS OF THE RUSSIAN AMERICAN 
COMPANY, UNDER YOUR IMPERIAL MA.JESTy's PATRONAGE. 

Lieutenant-Captain Kashevarov, Commander of the harltor of Aiaii. 
suppUMiientino- liis former r(>])orts in regard to the stay of the enemy's 
shi{)s in the port entrusted to his care, informs us, under date of August 
.5th. that on July 3(>th. a French frigate "La Constantine'\ joined the 
English ships in the bay. She was commanded by Captain Tardy de 
]\loiitravel, Chief of the squadron in the Lido-Chinese seas. When 
the Captain and the officers of the frigate came on shore, they w^ere 
exemplary in their demeanour; they did not search the port or its 
neighborhood or the store-houses of the Company. They said, that 
althougii they were perfectly aware that cannon were ])uried under- 
ground, the}- would ))e i-eadyio take them from the batteri(>s but con- 
sidered it beneath their dignity to dig them up. They took oidy tim- 
ber, water and a small ({uantity of tish. which the sailors caught near 
the coast. 

In general, the English, as well as the French officers, were always 
civil to the Company's Agent. Commodore Eliot invited him to dine 
with him on board the frigate and although Mr. FreibcM'g at first 
refused this invitation under difierent pretexts, he finally accepted it 
to avoid giving oii'ence. He was kindly greeted both l)y the Connno- 
dore and his officers. On this occasion Mr. Freiberg had an interview 
with the Russian officers who were prisoners taken fi'om tlu^ frigate 
'•Diana", namely: Prince Urousoff. Kovalevsky and Michaelotf. 
They stated that they had been treated politely and with great consid- 
eration by the English. 

In confirmation of Conuuodore Charles Frederick's proclamation 
issued at Aian during the first stay of the English ships. Connnodore 
Eliot gave the Com])any"s Agent a letter for Captain 'Pardy de Mont- 
ravel to be presented to him in the event of his arriving at Aian after 
the depai'tuie of the English, begging the lattei" not to conunit any 
hostih' acts against Aian. Acting upon this lettei' Captain Tardy de 
]Montravel gave the Agent a written document to be presented to the 
Conuuandei's of the French ships, arriving at Aiaiu and entailing the 
security of the. port and property of the Company. 

On August 1st, the English ship put to sea and on the -Jrd. the 
French frigate followed. This siiuadron is supposed to have sailed 
towards Okhotsk; no hostile ships remained in the \)o\'i of Aian. 

LicMitenant-Captain Kaslu^varov adds that according to what the 
officers of the aforesaid ships had said, the French squadron sailed 



20 LEASE OF THE LISIERE 

to Sitka with tho iiittMition of not obsi>rviiio- the neutrality of the 
Coloniet?. Thi« .statement, however, in thii opinion of tlie Board of 
Directors deserves no notice, in view of the fact that the allied squad- 
rons had already been in Sitka durino- the month of June and the 
allied Admirals had declared that the neutralit}" would not be violated. 
It is even probable that this circumstance was as 3'et unknown to the 
crews of the ships then lyino- at Aian. 

The Board of Directors of the Russian Anjerican Company has the 
honor of informino- Your Impei'ial Majesty concerning- these matters. 

President: 

Major-G eneral Politkovsk y. 

October 21, 1855. 



Report of tlu' Board of Directors of tin; RaHi<tari American Conqxiny^ 

JVcn'e/ithcr 16, ISoo. 

[Translation.] 

To His Imreriai^ Majesty: 

REPORT OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE RUSSIAN AMERICAN 
COMPANY UNDER YOUR IMPERIAL MAJESTY'S PATRONAGE. 

By the report dated September 10th last, the Board of Directors 
had the honor of bringing- to Your Imperial Majesty's notice the news 
received from the Company's Agent in California concerning the visit 
of the Anglo-French squadron to Sitka during the last part of June. 
The particulars, however, were unknown before a report reached us 
from our Colonies. 

The Chief Director of the Colonies, Captain Voevodsky states the 
following circumstances in a despatch, dated August 28th, which 
comes by the wa}^ of California. On the morning of June 29th, two 
ships were seen on the horizon of Sitka bay. Although without Hags, 
they were known to be warships. A))out noon they were both out of 
sight. On the morning of June 2nd an English steam frigate '"' Brisk" 
was seen in the gidf on its wav towards the bay, disj)laying at the 
fore-mast a Russian Vice Admiral's flag of the 2nd division. A Sec- 
retary and a translator attached to the Chief Director were sent from 
Novo-Archangel to meet the ship and ascertain the cause of its arrival. 
They were received on the frigate by the English Admiral Bruss and 
the French Admiral Fourichon. The former states that he respected 
the neutrality of the Colonies and that he had come with the friendly 
intention of deli\ cring to the Director some newspapers containing 
interesting Euroix-an news. He said that the s(iuadron was returning 
from the \)ovi of retiT)i)avlovsk. where the only persons it had found 
were two Americans, all the Russijin soldiers and inhabitants having 
left the ])lac(\ He mentioned at the same time that the ships seen 
near Sitka on June 2i)th, belong to the allied squadron under his com- 
mand, among them being the Hag-ship "President'' and that not far 
from the entrance of the gulf there were some ships of the squadron, 
among them the French frigates "la Forte," " I'Alceste" and 'TEuri- 
dice." Admiral Fourichon, on his part, asked what ships were stay- 
ing in the liarboi- of Sitka, the masts of which were visible from 
beyond the islands and upon 1)eing told that they belonged to the 



TO THE Hudson's bay company. 21 

Company, asked if there were among- them any war-ship.s, was pleased 
to receive an answer in the negative. After this, the Secretary of the 
Chief Director, having received from Admiral Brass .some English 
newspai)ers l(>ft the frigate wiiich instantly put out to sea. She was 
soon t)iit of sight as well as all the other ships which had been visil)le 
on the horizon. 

The Board of Directors has the honor of informing Your Imperial 
Majesty of these matters. 

President Major-General: 



POLITKOVSKY. 



10 November 1855. 



The Director.^ of the Jiif-sskin Ainericaoi Coirqxiny to tlic Minuter of 

Foreign Affairs. 

[Translation.] 

Board of Direction of the 
Russian American Co^ipany. 

Jar, uary 26, 1859. A7>. ///. 
To the Minister of Foreign Affairs. 

In the year 1S39 the representatives of the Russian American Com- 
pany and the Hudson's Bay Company, with the High assent of His 
Majesty, concluded an agreement between the two said Companies 
providing for the lease by the former to the latter, for a term of ten 
years, from June 1, 18-10, of a part of our possessions on the North 
West coast of America, a strip of land extending in a North Westerh' 
direction from latitude 51-^ 10' north, along a line drawn between Cape 
Spencer, in the Cross bay, and ]\lount Fair Weather. 

The reasons which induced the Russian American Company to enter 
into the said agreement, were as follows: 

(1) The strip of mainland so leased is ten marine leagues in breadth 
and is sea-coast land, rather improductive of fur bearing animals, ))ut 
with a certain importance in a conmiercial sense, because since the 
establishnient there of our fort St. Dionysius a certain portion of the 
hunting product of the natives living within the limits of the British 
possessions ctime into our hands. But the benefits which our Company' 
thus derived from the situation were seriously reduced by the opera- 
tions of the Hudson's Bay Company which availed itself of the right 
granted for ever to British subjects by the Convention of 1825, to 
navigate freely on all streams running* across our territory from the 
British possessions into the Ocean. It took measures to occupy (and 
did })artl3' occupy) all the most important points on the border of our 
possessions. The rivalry and conflicts between the agents of both 
Companies, which must inevita))ly arise under such circumstances 
would certainly have resulted in loss to both Companies. 

(2) We desired also to adjust amicably the claim for 18.").0<)0 Roubles 
which the Hudson's Bay Company made as an indenmity for our hav- 

ng prevented a ship of the Hudson's Bay Company from entering the 
river Stakine. 

Tlie Hudson's Bay Company declai'ed that act to l)e a breach of the 
stipulations of the aforesaid Convention of 182."), We resisted that 
claim under the stipulations of the said Convention, but it became evi- 
dent from the long correspondence which took })lace in this connection 



00 



lp:ase of the list ere 



betwcM-'ii our Govcnunciit mid that of (ii'cat Britain, that the Kiissian 
AiiHM'ican Conijiaiiy woiiM Ix' t'orccd ultiinately to satisfy the said 
claim. 

The a}4re(Mii(Mit entered into between tlie two C'oni]ianies contained 
amono- other stipuhitions one which ])oundthe Hudson's Bay Company 
to furnish to the Russian American Company, as a yearl}^ rental, 2000 
sea-otter [sic] skins and to withdraAv the aforesaid claim for damag-es. 

When the term of the said lease expired, it was agreed ))y the assent 
of both Companies to renew the same for a further term of nine years 
from June the 1st, 1S5<), ou the former conditions, ))ut with certain 
modifications wliicli were rendered necessary })y the circumstances of 
the time and were demand(>d ])y the mutual inter(\sts of the Companies. 

The renewal of the said lease, in the form of which an original copy 
is herewith enclosed, took place under the High Imperial assent, given 
on January the 22nd, IS-iH, upon a report submitted to His Majesty 
b}" the State-Controller. 

The chief cause upon the part of the Russian American Compan}^ 
for renewing this lease, viz. its desire to maintain friendly intercourse 
between the Companies made necessary ])v the local conditions of 
close neighborhood, was fully justified during the last war. and proved 
to be as im})ortant as the Board of Direction had anticipated. For 
it was undoubtedly this friendly understanding which assisted the 
Companies to obtain (in 1854) the neutrality that each Company asked 
for and obtained from its own Government and which protected their 
property by exempting each Company's possessions respectively from 
the hostile attacks of the enemy. 

As the termination of the last prolongation of the said lease is now 
approaching, the Board of Direction of the Russian American Com- 
pany deemed it just to inform the Hudson's Bay Company that. l)v a 
contract concluded with a syndicate of trading firms of San Fran- 
cisco, the Russian American Company had bound itself to trade 
exclusively with the said syndicate in the sale of certain colonial prod- 
ucts, to Avit: ice, coal, timber and salt fish; and consequently that 
upon the expiration of the lease to the Hudson's Bav Company, the 
Russian American Company could no longer grant to the Hudson's 
Bay Company the export trade in the said articles: but, with the 
permission of the Russian Crovernment, it could renew" the other stip- 
ulations of the said lease, for the remaining term of the Company's 
concessions, viz. till January 1, 1862. 

The F)oai(l of Direction of the Hudson's Bay Comi)any re])lied in a 
letter dated Decend)er 28, 1858, that, notwithstanding so considerable 
a limitation of the Company's trading right the Company was quite 
willing to renew the lease for another period on the former conditions, 
because the Company was desirous to continue the same friendly 
relations which had subsisted for so long a time between the Companies. 

The (|uestion was then submitted to the Russian American Com- 
pany's Committee for political affairs, and by mutual agreement 
])etween the Connnittee and the Chief Board of Direction, it Avas 
decided to rc^port the case to Your Excellency, with the retpiest that 
the High ai)])roval of His Majesty to a renewal of the said lease to 
January 1, 1862, be ol)tained on the same conditions, excluding the 
right of exporting the aforementioned colonial products. 

The Chief Board of Direction of the Russian American Company 



TO THK Hudson's bay company. 23 

rtiinouiu-es to Your Exci^llciuy the said decision and has the honor to 
re(|iiest an answer, with the return of the enck)sed original aureenient. 
I)on(> in London on the '2i')th April S May . 1S41>. 

W. PoLiTKOvSKY, President. 
[Sio'iKHl by four nieniJxu's whose sionatures are illegible.] 

A. '^IMlvO^■SKY, Chitf of Chancery. 



^fhiJxfer of Fori^'ign Aifa/rs to Minhter of Finance- 

[Translation.] 

No. 582.] Fkbkuaky 26, 1859. 

The Board of Directors of the Russian American Coniininy requests 
that His Majesty may grant his permission to the extension until Janu- 
ary l>th, 18H2. of the agreement concluded between that Company and 
the Hudson's Bay Company in the year 1839 and renewed in 18^9, by 
which a part of our possessions on the North- Western coast of America 
were leased to the Hudson's Bay Company. 

The Board of Directors is of the opinion that it is not advisable to 
grant to the said company the right of foreign trade in ice. coal, tim- 
ber, and salt tish. 

In view of the facts that the leases of 1839 and 1819 were confirmed 
by our Government, that the proposed lease contains no new^ stipula- 
tions, but on the contrai'v curtails the right of the Hudson's Ba}" 
Company; and that its term is to be less than three years — I, for m}' 
part, see no objection to asking His Majest3'"s approval to the exten- 
sion of the Agreement. 

I have the honor to lay the matter before Your Excellency, annex- 
ing the original rec[uest of the Board of Directors. (No. Ill) and a 
copy of the contract of 1819. I beg you to inform me whether the 
Ministry of Finance finds any ol)jection to granting the permission 
asked for by the Russian American Company. 

Minister of Foreign Affairs. 

Director of Department. 



JSHnistt-r if Finance to Minit^ter of Fordr/n Affairs. 

[Translation.] 

Ministry of Finance. Department of Foreign Trade, 

March -i, 1859. ^^o. 3J,52. 

To the Minister of Foreign Affairs. 

In answer to the report No. 582 dated February 26. last, returning- 
the enclosures. I have the honor to inform Your Grace that the Min- 
istry of Financt> sees no reason for refusing the request of th(^ Russian 
American Company, re(iuesting tlu^ High permission of His Majesty 
for the renewal, in its new form, of the agreement concluded l)y the 
said Company with the Hudson's Bay Company. 

Minister of Finance: 

A. Knia.ievitch. 

For the Chief of the Department: 

(signed) General-Lieutenant Pashkow. 



24 LEASE OF THE LISTKRK 

Rep()rt of Minister of Foreign A^f\urH^ 2l<(r<-/i /.^, 1S50. 

[TranslatidU.] 
KEl'ORT TO HIS MAJESTY FROM THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS. 

The Board of Directors of the Russian American Company most 
respectfully requests Your Majesty to grant Your Hioh permission to 
the extension, until January 1, 1862, heino- the remainder of the term 
of the Company's fi-anchise. of the contract concluded with the Hud- 
son's Ba}' Company in the year lS8i^ and renewed in 184'.>, hy which 
a part of our possessions on the North- Western coast of America is 
leased to the said Company. 

The Board of Directors, however, believes it would be advisable 
not to grant to the said Company the right of export trade in ice, 
coal, timber and salt fish. 

After having asked the opinion of the Minister of Finance in regard 
to the matter, I see no objection to granting to the Hussian American 
Company permission to renew the contract, especially in view of the 
fact that the leases of 183H and 1849 were confirmed l)y our Govern- 
ment. The proposed lease, also, contains no new stipulations l)ut, on 
the contrary, curtails the rights of the Hudson's Bay Company, and 
its term is to l)e less than three years. I have therefore no hesitation 
in requesting for it Your Majesty's sanction. 

The original bears the annotation in His Majesty's own handwrit- 
ing: "Let it be done."" 

St. Petersburg, March 1J{,^ lSo9. 



Directors of Russian American Conipany to Minister of Finance. 

■ [Translation.] 

March 26, 1859. No. 386. 
To the Minister of Finance: 

On account of the expiration on June 1st, 1859 of the agreement 
sanctioned b}^ His Imperial Majesty and concluded between the Russian 
American and the English Hudson's Bay Companies, for the lease of 
a part of our possessions on the northwest coast of America, the Board 
of Directors of the Russian American Company deemed it advisa))le to 
announce to the management of the Hudson's Bay Company, that, 
according to the conti'act entered into with the Tradesman's Society at 
San Francisco wc had agreed to trade exclusively with that society in 
such colonial products as ice, coal. timt)i'r and salt iish and that, there- 
fore, we could not, after the expiration of the term mentioned, allow 
the Hudson\s Bay Company to retain the right of foreign trade in these 
products. Nevertheless we have no objection, provided the sanction 
of the Government be obtained, to the renewal of the other clauses of 
the agreement until the expiration of the term of our franchise, that 
is, until January 1st, 1862. 

The Directors of the Hudson's Bay Company on December 28th 
1858 replied that, notwithstanding such a material limitation of its 
right to trade in the aforesaid colonial products, it would consent to 



TO THE Hudson's bay company. 25 

the roiiowal of the contract tor the term recently nieiitioiied. and on 
the previous terms, as far as the rest of the conditions werc^ concerned, 
wishino- particuhirly to maintain the same friendly feelino- which has 
so long- existed between the C'om])anie.s. 

This question was pres(>nted for tlu^ consideration of the Committee 
on political ati'airs. established according to articles of the Company 
and, by the mutual ag-retMuent of that Committee and the Board of 
Directors, it solicited the good ofHces of the Minister for Foreign 
Affairs in order to obtain His Imperial Majesty's sanction to the pro- 
longation of all the articles of the agreement until .January 1st, 1862, 
except the one concerning the right of carrying on the foreign trade 
in the above-mentioned local products. 

At present, the Minister for Foreign Ati'airs has informed the 
Board, in his report diited March ITth, (No. STO) that His Imperial 
Majesty was pleased to sanction the renewal of this agreement for the 
term and on the conditions proposed b}' the Company. 

Informing you. Sir, of all these matters, the Board of Directors 
begs to add. that due measures for the carrying out of the said resolu- 
tion have been adopted. 

President: V. Pootkovsky. 



Report of Minister of Foreic/n Aifalrs. 

LTranshition.] 

REPORT OF THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS TO HIS MAJESTY CON- 
CERNING THE CONTRACT CONCLUDED BETWEEN THE RUSSIAN AMERICAN 
COMPANY AND THE HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY, 

Vour Imperial Majest3% acting upon my most respectful ri^port of 
March 1-1, LSoS>, has granted to the Russian American Company ])ermis- 
sion to extend the contract l)etween that Company and the Hudson's 
Ba}' Company, leasing a part of our possessions on the North-Western 
coast of America until Jaiuiary 1, 18«)2, on which date the franchise of 
the said company expires. 

Now, conforming to the opinion of the Council of State dated May 
2^> last approved by Youi- Majesty, which permitted the Kussian Ameri- 
can Company to continue its business on the former terms until the 
({uestion of the Company's franchise should l)e tinally decidtnl: namely, 
until June 15. 1863, the Board of Directors of the Russian American 
Company, finding it impossible in so short a period of time to make 
any moditications in the agreement, proposed to the Hudson's Ba\^ 
Company an extension until rlune 1st, 1863, of the present agreement 
upon its former terms, and has received the consent of the Hudson's 
Bay Company to that proposal. 

Accordingly the Boaid of Directors requests Vour Majesty's High 
permission to an extension of the said agreement ui)on the fornier con- 
ditions until June 1, I8»i3. 

Having been informed by the Minister of Finance that there are no 
objections to granting the request of the Russian American Company. 
I take the lil)erty of asking for it Your Alajesty's High approval. 

The original bears the annotation in His ^Jajesty's own iiandwriting: 
'' Let it be done.'' 

Tzarskoe-Selo, Octohr 19. ISO I. 



26 LEASE OF THE LISIERE 

Minister of Foirign Affnirs to Board of Dir<;ctors of Russian American 

( 'owj)ar)y. 

[Tninslatioii.] 

MiXISTRY OF FOKEKJiV AfFAIRS, 

Octoher ^i, 1861. No. 3162. 
To the Board of Direction of the 

Klssian American Comrany. 
His Imperial ^Majesty, havino- taken into consideration my report of 
the request of the Board of Directors of the Company, dated Septem- 
ber 11, No. 870, has oranted his iiigh permission to the extension, until 
fTune 1, 1863, and in its former terms, of the ao-reement conchided l)y 
the Russian American Company with the Hudson's Bay Company. 

1 deem it my duty, in repl}' to the said request, to inform the lioard 
of Directors of the Couipany of this Imperial order. 

Minister of Foreign Affairs. 



Board of Directors of Busslan Arnerican Conqxniij to Jli/u'.ste/' of 

Finance. 

[Translation.] 

NOVEMHER HtH, 1801. No. 1»»02. 

To the Minister of Finance: 

In the report dated March SOth, 1859, No. 380, the Board of Direct- 
ors had the honor of informing- you. Sir, that the term of the agree- 
ment of lease with the Hudson's Bay Company has been prolonged, 
with the sanction of His Imperial Majesty, until the expiration of the 
term of the American Company's franchise, that is to sav until Jaiui- 
ary 1st, 1862. 

At present according to the permission given to the Company by 
the Council of State and confirmed by His Imperial Majesty on May 
2yth last to prolong its operations on the previous basis until the 
question concerning the Company's franchise be definitely settled, that 
is to say until June loth, 180)3, the Board, finding it inconvenient in 
so short a time to eli'ect any alteration of the contract, pi'oposed to 
the latter Company that the lease be extended on the present ))asis 
until June 1st, old style, 18()3. To this the Board of Directors have 
given their consent. Tlu^refore the Board of Directors ha\e again 
solicited His Imperial Majesty's sanction to the prolongation of the 
above-mentioned agreement and the Minister for Foreign Ati'airs 
informed the Board, on Octoljer the 21st (sub No. 3102,) that in con- 
sequence of his report. His Imperial Majesty was pleased to grant the 
permission, for the i)rolongation on the ])r'evious terms, until June 1st, 
old style, 1803, of the contract concluded between the Com})anies. 

The Board of Dinn-tors is bound to inform you. Sir thereof and to 
add that ai'rangements to that elfect have Ixmmi made by the Company. 

Fresident: 

V. Folitkovsky. 



TO THK Hudson's bay company. 27 

TJu- Bod I'd of D! recto !'><<>/ the B Kssian Amei'lcan Coutpany to Min/ster 

of Finance. 

[Triinsliition.] 

January 9tli, Lmj;^. No. 37. 
To the ^Iinistp:h or Finance: 

Hefoiv the expinitioii on Jiuiujirv 1st, 1862. of the term of the iioree- 
lueiit with the Hudson's B;iv Company for the lease of a part of our 
jiossessions on tht> North-Eastei-n coast of America, the Company's 
Board of Directors — bearinji- in mind the permission of the Council of 
State, sanctioned \>\ His Imperial Majesty on May 29th, 1861, to pro- 
lon<)- the operations of the Company on the previous conditions until 
the (juestion of its franchise should be settled, that is to say till June 
l.Mh, 1868. — ai)plied to the Minister of Foreion Atfairs askino- him to 
secure His Impi-ria! Majesty's permission for the renewal of that agree- 
ment, with the consent of the Hudson's Bay Company, on the previous 
<-onditions. until June 1st. old style, 1863. 

In his report to the Board of Directors, dated October 21st. 1861, 
(No. 3162), the Minister for Foreign Atfairs stated, that His Imperial 
Majesty had graciously sanctioned the renewal of this agreement and 
the Board had the honor of informing the ex-Minister of Finance of 
this fact in his report dated Noveml)er 6th, (No. 1062). 

In ,]\\\\ last the management of the Hudson's Bay Company informed 
th(> Board of Directors that theCovernor and Council of that Company's 
dominions, intended to put an end to the agreement which had so long- 
existed between the two Companies. Their intention being due to the. 
unfavorable conditions of trade during these two last years which 
seemed to show little prospect of improvement. Notice was therefore 
given us that upon the expiration of the term of the agreement its 
renewal would not be accepted. 

The Board of Directors, attributing this refusal not so much to the 
conditions of trade, which upon investigation showed no material 
change, but to local ditliculties. arising out of the discovery of gold 
deposits in the Stakine river, did not hurry to inform its Govei'nment 
of this connuunication and instructed its agents to carefully investigate 
the matter, believing that with time and further developments the 
ideas of the Hudson's Bay Company might still l>e changed. 

This view of th(^ matter was very soon justified and towards the end 
of the year, information came from the Board of Directors of the 
Hudson's Bay Company, that, in view of the present unsettled condi- 
tion of th(> country, it was too soon to expect trade to be carried on 
without encouragement. The Directors were therefore willing to 
rcMicw the agreement for two years longer, on the previous conditions 
luitil -lune 1st. old style. 18«;5. 

Therefore relying ujjon the actual general state of atl'airsand on the 
report of our Ambassador in London, who consith'rs the further 
renewal of our agreement with the Hudson's Bay Com])any of gr(\it 
im])ortance towards preventing any com])lications in the Stakine rixcr 
(luestion, — which, in the opinion of the Board, will no longer re(|uire 
such close attention and watchfulness on our part. — the Board of 
Directors, after having submitted the question to the consideration of 
the Connnittee for political atl'airs. has the honor of asking for your 
good oUices in obtaining His Imperial Majesty's sanction to the renewal 



28 LEASE OF THE LTSIERE 

of the aforesaid contract with the Hudson's Bay Compan}^ on the 
former terms until June 1st. old style, 1865. 

In conclusion, the Jioard of Directors considers it its duty to add, 
that in 1859. on the renewal of the ao-reement until January 1st, 1802, 
it was ao-reed that the Hudson's liay Company should not have the 
right to trade in local ])roducts such as: coal, ice, timber, and salt-tish, 
and that the same condition is now to be observed. Therefore, in the 
present instance, should g'old deposits be discovered in the leased strip 
of land, the right to work them should belong- to our Company or be 
made the subject of a special agreement. 

Chairman: V. Politkovsky. 



Report of Minister of Finance^ Jdiiuary £5, 1863. 

[Translation.] 

Ministry of Finance, 
Department of Trade and Manufacture. 
The Boai'd of Directors of the Russian American Company, in com- 
pliance with the oHer made by the management of the British Hud- 
son's Bay Company, asks permission to renew for two years more, till 
June 1st, 1865, the agreement with that Company for the lease of a 
part of our possessions in America. In this wa}^ it is thought that cer- 
tain difficulties, arising out of the discovery of the new gold tields on 
the Stakine River be3'ond the borders of our possessions, can be 
averted, — in view of the fact that these gold tields attract a great num- 
ber of new comers of different nationalities which necessitates constant 
care and watchfulness on our part. 

1. In 1889 permission was granted to the Russian American Com- 
pany to make an agreement with the Hudson's Bay Company, for the 
period of ten years, commencing in June 1840, for the lease, at a fixed 
annual rental, of a part of the Russian possessions in America adja- 
cent to the English frontier and north and south of the Stakine river. 
Upon the expiration of this term, the agreement was renewed, with 
His Imperial Majesty's sanction, tirst for a term of nine years, until 
flune 1st, 1859, afterwards until Januarv 1st, 1862 and finalh" till June 
1st, 1868. 

2. The privilege granted to the Russian American Company expired 
on January 1st. 1862 and l)v permission of the Council of State sanc- 
tiontnl by His Imperial Majesty on Ma}' 29, 1861, the Company was 
allowed to prolong its operations upon the previous conditions, until 
the question as to tlu^ fui'ther administration of the Russian American 
Colonies should be detinitely settled. 

3. The gold tields on the Stakine River were discovei-ed at the 
beginning of 1862 and parties of diggers began coming there in ISIarch 
of the same year. From information obtained on the spot by the 
Colonial Boai'd. the riclu\st deposits lie not less than 165 Italian miles 
from the mouth of Stakine, far beyond the Russian possessions which 
extend only 8(» miles (52^ versts) from the shore. The mines nearest 
our frontiers are the poorest, the nuggets l)eing very small and in the 
best districts it is impossible to make more than five dollars a day 
profit. The (Company's paj'ty, sent there under the command of the 



T(» 'I'HK iu'dson's hav company. 29 

tcrhniral cn^iiu'cr Andrci'V, siicceecled in four days in o-cttini;- only 
about five zolotnik.s. which were sent to the Chief Director of the 
Colonies. The news of this discovery, however, made a oreat impres- 
sion on the colonists of Vancouver Island. Several articles appeared 
in certiiin pajx'rs edited in the harbor of Victoria daiminii' for (ireat 
Britain the mouth of the Stakine. upon the o-round that if it belono-ed 
to liussia it would l)e inconvenient for the ookl miners. All this 
alarmiHl the Colonial Manasi-enuMit and the Board of Directors of the 
Kussian American Company solicited the (iovermnent to take steps 
toward iiuardin^i' the mouth of the Stakine River against the expected 
arbitrary proceedings of foi-eign traders and pointed out the necessity 
of sending there a war ship of the Pacific Fleet. 

Accordingly, the Minister of Finance communicated with the Vice- 
Chancellor and the Minister of Marine (Lord High Admiral). Adju- 
tant ( Jeneral Krabl)e informed him that, on account of a great reduction 
of the na\al appropriation, the SijUiidron in the Pacific Ocean was then 
verv small and would later f)e limited to but three vessels. Prince 
(iortchakov. Hnding it inconvenient to weaken this scjuadron by send- 
ing one of its ships to the Colony, wrote to the Kussian Aml)assador 
in London in reference to the (piestion of the protection of our domin- 
ions on the Stakine River against arbitrar}- actions by the miners. 
The Ambassador informed him that, in his opinion, the best settle- 
ment of the matter would be a friendh' agreement. He said that the 
agreement existing l)etween the Hudson's Bay Company and our own 
had already averted UMinv misund(M'standings. and that the renewal of 
the agreement on the basis of the Convention of 1S:^5, would no doubt 
be sutlicient for the future. At this time Privy Councilor I>aron 
Hi-unn()\' was sent out and a reference to the matter was received l)y 
th(^ Ministry of Marine from Rear-Admiral Popov, one of His Maj- 
esty's suite, and Commander of the Pacific Scpiadron, who on his way 
from Petropavlovsk (Port of Avatchka) in August last, came into 
Novo-Archangel and held a conference with the Chief Director for 
the Colonies about the Stakine River Mines. Rear Admiral Po})ov 
observed that the mouth of the St-akine was too shallow for the entry 
of our war ships. l»ut that such shi})s might be sent there not as i)olice 
shi])s but to display our flag for a short time. 

Taking into consideratit)n all these facts, the Minister of Finance is 
of the same opinion as Baron Brunnov. that, owing to the great num- 
ber of new comers of difierent nationalities, the ({uestion of guarding 
the Russian dominions at the mouth of the Stakine can be best settled 
by means of a friendly agreement and therefore he finds the request 
of the Russian American Company for the renewal, for two years 
moie. of th«' agi'eement with the Hudson's Bay Company to be worthy 
of consideration. Moreover, the expiration of the term of the fi'an- 
chis(» of the former Company should be no obstacle to the renewal, 
inasnmch as by His Im])erial Majesty's sanction, the Company has the 
right to act on tlie present basis till th(> ((uestion as to the renewal of 
its ])rlvileges is definitely settled and since the agreement ])eing con- 
tracted in the name of and with the sanction of the (to\ crnment. binds 
the latter for the short term of two years. 

Moreover, in view of the fact that to introduce a consideration of 
this matter into th(^ Council of State would be inadmissiible on account 
of its involving a too opiMi discussion of our foreign i)olicy. the Min- 
ister of Finance, in conformity with the opinion of the \'ice-Chancellor. 

2r.O:26— AP 3 



30 LEASE OF THE LISIERE 

l)elioves it necessaiT that preliininiirv conversations upon the suhjoct 
shiould ho had with Prince (lortchakov and the Lord Iliiih Admiral 
and tiien that the dctinitivc sanction of Your Inipci'ial Majesty shoujd 
be asked for. This (|uesti()n lie has the honor of sul)niittinu' to Your 
InipiM'ial Majesty's decision. 

On the orjuinal. writtcMi witli the hand of the Minister of Finance: 
"By Ini])eiial connnantl to l)e carried into eti'ect."' St. Petershuro-, 
January 2oth, 18t;;5. 

Secretary of State: Reutekx. 



^fhtist't' of F! nance to T7cv' CJi((ncclIor. 

[Translation.] 

Ministry of Finance, 
Department of Trade and Manufacture, 

January 31, 1863. No. 71^9. 
^y Imperial Order. In reoard to the renewal of the lease between 
the Russian American Company and the Hudson's Bay Company. 

To the Vice Chancellor, 

I ha\e received Your Excellency's connnunication dated January 
l(')th. No. 163, in reoard to the proposal of the Board of Direction of 
the Russian American Company to extend for two yeai's. to wit, until 
the 1st of June 1865, the term of the contract with the Hudson's Bay 
Company for the lease to that Company of a part of the Ivussian pos- 
sessions in America ah)ng- tlie British frontier, northward and south- 
ward of the river Stalvhin. 1 am of the same opinion as our Ambas- 
sador in London, namely, that the best way to settle the question of 
protecting- our possessions near the mouth of the Stakhin against the 
tide now flowing into that district of all classes of immigrants attracted 
thither by the newdy discovered g-old deposits is to come to an amica- 
ble agreement. 1 am in favor of granting the request of the Com- 
pany aforementioned. But remend)ering that if this subject should in 
the usual course of affairs l)e ])rought u]) for discussion Ix^fore the 
Council of State, inconveniences might arise because of certain })olit- 
ical ([uestions which ought not to be too freely discussed in public, I 
had the honor to report the case to His Majesty and His Majesty 
issued on January the 25th an Imperial order that the said proposal of 
the Russian American Company should be conHdentially discussed 
befondiand by Your Excellency, the Minist(>r of th(» Marine, and 
myself: and that after such discussion the final decision of His Majesty 
in regard to this matter be takeiL 

Ha\ ing informed the (icneral Aide-de-camp Krabbe of this Impe- 
rial order, I have the honor to communicite tlu» sanu> to Your Excel- 
lency herewith. 

Minister of Finance. Secretary of State, 

Reutern. 



TO THE Hudson's hav comi'anv. 31 

n<j>nrf (if M/iiisfrr of FiiKiiicc, Fihrcdrij .l.i^ /W-A 

[Tnuisliitiiiii.] 

MlNISTKV OF FlNANCi:. 

I)ki>artmknt oy Industry and Tradk. 

On the orioiiml is written by His Imperial Mjijestv: ""To be exe- 
eiited": and by the Minister of Finance, "'St. Petersburo- Fel)ruary 

In aeeordance with ^'our Imperial Majesty's order of .lannary lioth 
last the Minister of Finance, touether with the Lord lliyii Admiral 
and the Director of the Asiatic Department, Adjutant (leneral Jgna- 
tiev, acting for the Vice-Chancellor, met to discuss the question raised 
by the Board of Directors of the Russian American Company; to wit, 
the renewal for two years longer, until June 1st. 1865, of tli€ ag"ree- 
ment with the Hudson's Bay Comptmy for the lease at a stipulated 
yearl}' rental, of a j^art of the Russian dominions adjacent to the 
Eno-lish border in America, north and South from the riv(M' Stakine. 

Fpon consideration, the Minister of Finance and the Adjutant (ren- 
erals lvrabl)e and Itiiiatiev came to the conclusion, that the lease of 
this strip of land. l)elonoino- to Russia, but iidiabited by independent 
natives, to the Hudson's Bay Company, might avoid di[)lomatic ditK- 
culties between Russia and other (ioveriuiients which might arise out 
of hostile demonstrations of the natives against foreign subjects. 
Such demonstrations are greatly to b(> fearetl on account of the great 
influx of gold prospectors of ditferent nationalities. Th(M'efor(\ in 
accord with the opinion expressed in the rei)ort of the Minister of 
Finance it is agreed that the (i,u(\stion of guaiding the Russian posses- 
sions on the Stakine Ri\'ei' against the lawlessn(>ss of the various for- 
eigners attracted there b}' the gold deposits, can best be settled by a 
friendly agreement, renewing the aforesaid contract for two years 
more. This contract should in no way prevent the consummation of 
those changes in the administration of the Russian American Colonies 
and of the Russian American Company's articles, which are to be 
introduced at the expiration of th(> tiM'm of their franchise. — inasnuich 
as thos(^ changes are not vet settled by legislative order and because 
to act upon them at once would take too much time. They cannot 
therefore be made etl'ecti\"e l)efore two years. 

The Miiuster of Finance therefore finds it wise to allow the Board 
of Directors of the Russian American Company to renew until June 
1st. ISO;"), the agreement with the Hudson's Bay Company, for the 
lease of the said part of our dominions in America. The Minister of 
Finance has the honor of sul)initting these facts for Youi' ImixM'ial 
Majesty's decision. 

Secretary of State: 

REUTEltN. 

M(ni>(tfr of F'nuinct^ to th- Yice Chinirrllnr. 

[Translatidii.] 

Ministry of Financk. 

DnrARTMENT OF ^MANUFACTURES AND TraDE. 

Khruai'ii 23, JSO-L X». 1J09. 
To the Vice Ciianceelor, by His Majesty's order: 

In regard to the renewal of the contract between the Russian 
AnuM'it-au Coinja-'y and the Hudson's I)ay Com|)any. 



32 LEASK OK TIIK LISIKHK 

After hiviiii' rei'C^ivol tin' r.'i) )rt which was rosppctfully suhmittc I 
to him l)v mv on the 22iid ot" F(>l)i-u;irv, 1 1 is M:ij(\stv directod that 
tiuthority should ho oiven to the Kiissian Anicriciiii C()ni})any to renew 
for a further tei'm of two years, to wit. until the l.st of flune. iSGo. 
the eontraet concluded for a certain tixed consideration, with the 
Hudson's Bay Compan}' providino- for the lease to the saidi Company 
of a portion of the Russian territory situate ah)ni*- the Eno-lish l)oun(i- 
ary line in America. Northward and Southward frou) the rivei- Stakhiii. 

As I have already comnumicated this Im})erial order to the Direc- 
tion of the Russian American Com[)any 1 n.ow have the honor to 
inform Your Excellency of it also, in connection with the interviews 
whicii have l)een held heretofore upon this subject. 

The Minister of Finance. Secretary of State: 

Rkutehn. 

Director of Department: 

A. BUTOVSKY. 



Minlsfci' of FiiuiiiCr to f/it- Ijoiird of D! r('rfoi:'< of th<Tiii.ssl(in Amrrtcan 

( 'oiiijxiinj. 

[Trniislatimi.] 

February 28ri), is*;:^,. No. 1307 
To the Board of Directors of the Russian American Company. 

In consequence of my report dated February 22nd, His Imperial 
Majesty a'raciously ordered the renewal of the ao-reement of the 
Russian American Company with the Hudson's Bay Com])any for two 
years more, until June 1st. 1865, for the lease, at a stipulated yearly 
rental, of a part of the Russian dominions adjacent to the Eniilish 
]>ordei- in America north and south from the ri\er Stakine. 

Havin*'' informed the Vice-Chancellor and the Lord Hioh Admiral 
of this Imperial order, I likewise, in answer to the repoitof the Board, 
dated January 9th last (No. 37), inform it thereof, in order that proper 
directions may lie g'iven and proper action taken by the Company. 

Secretary of State 

Reutekn. 



T/k' 2[iinst(r of y'l iiancc to tJn- Vice ('hdiicellor. 

[Translation.] 

Private.] 

To His Excellency Prince A. M. Gortchakov. 

Sir: By the enclosed Memorandum, sent to me by the President of 
the Board of Direction of the l^ussian American Company, Your 
Excellency will observe that in view of the approaching- termination 
of the lease of the sti'ip of land on the American continent which 
belongs to the Russian Amei'i("an Company the Hudson's Bay Com- 
pany has proposed to it to ren(MV the said lease on the same conditions 
for a furth(M- ])erio(l of three years. On the other hand, tlu^ Minister 
of the United Sttites of North America has offered to the Board on 
])ehalf of some persons in California to psiy a o-reater sum for the land 
now leased to the Hudson's Bay Com])any, than the said com]iany 



TO THE IU'DSOn's HAY COMl'ANV. 88 

pjiA's, or to noo-otiate for the lea.so of tho islar.d.s lyin^' near the coast 
and not leased by the said coiiipanv. The Director of the Russian 
AnuM'ican C'onipany states that Mr. Chiv offered further to enter into 
neuotiations with a view of accjuirino- these hinds l)y purchase. 

Since the acceptance of either the one or the othei' of these said 
otfers may have important political results and may oldige the Im])e- 
rial (io\erruncnt to opiMi negotiations with the (Jovernment of (Jreat 
Britain or that of the United States, I consider it my duty to forward 
to Your Excellency the said Memorandum in order that you may give 
the subject a closer examination. In my opinion it w'ould be well to 
connuunicate to our ^linister at Washinoton for his information all 
the details i-elatino- to the subject, in view of the neootiations now 
))ein<;- carried on in regard to the cession of our Amei'ican Colonies to 
the I'nitcd States; and also to instruct the Board of Dii'ci-tion of the 
Russian American Company to refrain from taking any decisive meas- 
ures in the matter, until the decision of the (lovernment shall ha\'e 
been made known to the said Board. 

Awaiting instructions from Your Excellency as to further proceed- 
ings, I beg Your Excellency to accept the assurance of my perfect 
devotion and respect. 

M. Reutekx. 

March lOth, 1807. 



[Enclcsure.] 
Memorniidum. 

Amongst otlier stipulations contained in the agreements entered into l)y our (gov- 
ernment with tlie United States in 1824 and witii Great Britain in 1S2.^, by which 
the frontiers of our colonies were exactly defined, the right was granted to the citi- 
zens of lioth nations to navigate freely on all seas, bays and inlets within the hmits 
of the Russian possessions in America, for the purposes of fishing and trading with 
the natives, during a period of ten years. It was also provided tiiat British ships 
should enjoy the perpetual right of free navigation on all rivers and streams, which 
cross the boundary line of the territory on the coast lielonging to Russia and flow 
into the Racitic Ocean. 

About tlie time when the said Agreement with the United States was to terminate, 
in April is;54._the Chief (iovernor of our colonies in America, in order to execute 
the I'rovisions thereof I'oirujianded a shii) belonging to the Russian American Com- 
pany to be stationed in the Coioshen straits, near the mouth of the river Stakhin, 
where the Company has a fort. In .June of the same year there arrived at that jioint 
from London a brig, belonging to the Hudson's Bay Com])any, called "Dryad," 
with the purpose of ascendijig the river Stakhin and founding a settlement within 
the line of the British possessions. The captain of the Russian American Company's 
ship prevented the execution of this plan and the Jirig "Dryad" was obliged to sail 
away without having fullilied her errand. 

In conse(iuence (jf this, the Hudson's Bay Company claimed from the Russian 
.Vmcricau Comjiany the sum of i;22.150 for damages caused to the Company by the 
said refusal to allow the brig " Dryad " to enter the river Stakhin. A correspond- 
ence ensueil thereupon between the two Comi)anies, which resulted in an Imperial 
order to the Russian American Company directing it to end this dispute by .•^ome 
amicable arrangement. 

Meanwhile the Board of Direction of the Russian Amciican Company received an 
intimation from one of the mi'iubers of the Hudson's Bay Company's Conuuittee 
that this claim could be satisfied by means of a lease to the Hudson's Bay Company 
of a part of the Russian territory a<ljoiniug the liritish jKh'ise.-'sions. The Pxianl of 
Direction of the Russian .\merican Company asked for permission to t'xecutc such 
an agreement of lea.<e and the vice-chancellor in his note to the .Ministt'r of Finance, 
dated .January 4, ISol), answered as follows: 

"Considered from a political jioint of view, the proposal to reach a friendly under- 
standing with the Hudson's P)ay Conqiany by means of a lease of the territory in 



34 LEA^K OF THE LISIERE 

(lue.^tii)ii i.^' in my uiiinion fully to be ai)])rove<l. If Huch an ajrret'nient were carried 
into effect, we should jraiii the iniinediate advanta^re of ternunatinji the present 
rivalry in tlie fur trade with the natives, and should avoid those frequent contlicts with 
Kniilishnieu and Americans which have led us l)efore now into several unpleasant 
interchanges of opinion with their resi)ective (iovernments. But above all, such an 
agreement would free us from further discussions with the (Tovernment of the Tnited 
States in regard to its troublesome and incessant demands which conflict with our 
interests, relating to the renewal of the right granted to American citizens by the 
aforesaid Convention to navigate freely all seas and inlets forming part of our 
possessions in America." 

An agreement on that basis was concluded between the Kussian American Com- 
]>any and the Hudson's Bay Comi)any, according to which the former granted to the 
latter by lease, for a term of ten years, for the purjx.se of carrying on an exclusive 
trade with the natives, that part of the mainland belonging to Russia which lies 
between Cape Si)encer in 54° 40' northern latitude and Mount Fair Weather, in 
59° 20' north latitude [.s'c]. The Hudson's Bay Company on its part waived its 
claim for damages and undertook in consideration for the land leased, to furnish 
2000 otter skins [sic] yearly. 

The term of that lease expired on ]\Iay lU, 1850; but l)efore that date the Hudson's 
Bay Company offered to renew the agreement for nine years more, on the ground 
that, if the lease were extinguished it would be impossible, in s]>ite of the sincere 
desire of the directors of both ('(jmpanies to continue their former mutual good rela- 
tions, to prevent conflicts and disputes between the agents of both jiarties. This is 
especially the case because the trade on the border territory would inevitably assume 
the character of an unfriendly competition and would be likely through the conduct 
of the natives to become injurious to both Companies. 

Having the same apprehensions and being equally desirous to continue the existing 
friendly intercourse the Russian American Company agree<l to a renewal of the lease 
for nine years more on the former conditions. Since then the lease has been renewed 
for various terms in consideration of the payment of a rental of £1500, a sum e(iuiva- 
lent in value to 2000 otter skins, instead of the furnishing of the skins themselves. 

Now, as the last extension terminates May olst of the jiresent year, the Hudson's 
Bay Company has offered to renew the lease on the former conditions, for three 
years more, both parties having the right to with<lraw from the contract on a notice 
of twelve months. 

But before the Hudson's l>ay Comininy made this offer, the ^Minister of the I'nited 
States made the following ])roposition to the Board of Direction of the Russian 
American Company on behalf of certain merchants in California, to wit: 

(1) To grant to them the exclusive right of fishing, hunting and trading with the 
natives within the following limits: Beginningat the jioint on the Pacillc Ocean where 
the 54° 40' north latitude intersects 134° 80' west longitude, along the Christian 
Sound and Chatham strait, to the 59° of north latitude on the chief jiromontory of 
Chilcate i)eninsula, shown on the charts under the name of Lynn Channel; thence 
northward t(j the boundary between Russian and English possessions; thence south- 
ward along the above-mentioned boundary to latitude 54° 40' and thence west to the 
point of begiiming; including all islands, headlands, rivers etc., within thesai<l limits, 
with the right of navigation on the river ]\Iackenzie, from its mouth to the British 
frontier. 

(2) This grant to be made for a term of 25 years with the privilege of renewing 
the contract, if it be found to be to the mutual interest of the Companies for twenty- 
five years more or for a term coextensive with exclusive i)roi)rietary rights of the 
Ru.ssian American Company in the said territory; the Russian American Company 
to receive in consideration 5'v of tlie annual gross revenue arising from the trading 
operations. 

In view of the fact that the said territory heri' desci-ibed, — excluding the islands — 
is exactly that which is now leased to the Hudson's Bay Company, and of the con- 
setjuent embarrassment under the circumstances in giving a decisive answer to this 
])roposition, the Board of Direction of the Russian American Company informed the 
Hudson's liay Company that its proposal should be acted ujMjn as soon as the proper 
authority had been obtained for that jun-po-se from our (Government. And in the 
meantime, in order to avoid such local ditticnlties as might occur through })OstpiMie- 
ment of the decnsion, the Boanl of Direction immediately instructed the colonial 
authorities to continue their intercourse between the conq)anies on the former terms 
until receipt of further orders. The ]Minister of the Cnited States was informed that 
as the said territory was then leased to the Hudson's Bay Company, it was impos- 
sible to enter at once into negotiations in regard to it. 

Afterwards ]Mr. Clay went in jierson to the oflice of the Russian American Com- 
pany's Direction, and proposed to pay a higher consideration for the mainland 
leaseil by the Hudson's Bay Comi)any than that jaiid byil: and he added that if 



TO THK Hudson's bay company. 35 

the Russian Aiuerican Company was unal)lt' to lease the main land he should pro- 
pose to lease tlu' islands included within the limits descriVjed which were not leased 
by the Hudson's I'>ay Company. 

The orifiinal lease of the said territory was forced upon the Russian American 
Company hy the necessity of quieting the Hudson's ]?ay Company's claim for imlem- 
nity. Althouirh it offered no pecuniary advantage to the Russian American Com- 
pany it served as a means to prevent conflict and disiHite between the agents of both 
Companies. Under it the former disagreements were unknown and the intercourse 
between the companies was entirely harmonious and satisfactory, it was owing 
indei'd to these mutually good relations that the two com])anies ol)tained from their 
resjiective (Governments, l)efore the last war, the decrees which made their jiroperty 
neutral ground and exempt(^d it from hostile attack, it having been considereil as 
proi)erty of private connnercial companies. 

But similar conditions are not likely to recur, because, since the appointment of a 
(Tovernor by Im])erial decree, the colonies will no longer retain their essentially 
connnercial character which rendered such an agreement possible. Therefore the 
Kussian American Comi)any has no desire to contiruie the said contract with the 
Hudson's 15ay Comjiany in tlie future if a more advantageous arrangement offers 
itself. The importance of the ]>rop()sal made by Mr. Clay will become evident upon 
a closer examination of the subject. 

As the term of the aforesaid lease has now expired, and as the Riissian American 
Company has replied to both offers made, the Company has a full right to choose 
the contract which presents the greater benefit. But as this transaction relates to so 
remote a territory and may have a political as well as a connnercial imi>ortance, it 
becomes necessary, in order to deal wisely with both parties, to decide beforehand: 

(1 ) Which of these offers is more acceptable to the (Government, from a political 
standpoint: and 

I 2) Would it be in conformity with the policy of the Government to enter into 
agreements with both parties: with the one for the lease of the mamland, and with 
the other for that of the islands'? 



Krtracf frotii Xdrratirc of a Journey Mound the WorJd. dx\, % Sir 
George Simji-^on^ London^ J 8/^7. 

(Vol. Il.'pag'e.s 180-183.) Finclino- that the vosscl. in whi^-h I was 
to pnx'i^od to Ochotsk, would not sail till two or three weeks later 
than I had heen led to '^xpect, 1 was anxious to employ the intermedi- 
ate month as usefully as possible; and as (xovernor Ktholine kindly 
afforded me the use of the Kus.sian steamer to tow to Cowlitz, on lier 
way to the Columbia, throuj»h the more intricate and dang-erous por- 
tion of the inland navioation, I deternnned to eml)race the opportunity', 
which this arrano-ement gave nie, of visiting- our estal)lisinnent of Tako 
and Stikine. 

Leaving New Archangt'l on the day after that of the hishoj/s arri- 
val. W(^ passed through Peril Straits into Chatham Sound, and. with- 
out having halted in the night, anchored at Tako next evening ahout 
seven. After ship])ing furs and getting a supj)ly of fuel, we again 
started at noon of the following day. Hy dayljreak on Monday the 
25th of April, we were in ^Vrang■el^s Straits; and towards evening, as 
we approached Stikine, my apprehensions were awaketied 1)V observ- 
ing the two national flags, the Russian and the English, hoisted half- 
mast high, while, on landing about seven men. my worst fears were 
reali/ed l)y hearing of tiic tragical end of Mr. flohn McLoughlin. Jun., 
the gentleman r(M-ently in charge. 

On the night of the iJOth. a dispute had arisen in the fort, while 
some of the meri. as I was grieved to hear, w<'re in a state of intoxi- 
cation; and several shots were fii'ed. by one of which Mr. McLoughiin 
fell. My arrival with two vessels at this critical juncture was most 



30 LEASE OF THE LISIKKE 

opportune, for otlici'wisc the fort mioht |)r()lial)ly have fallen a sacri- 
fice to the sava«ies. who were as>einl)le(l i-ouiul it to the luiniher of 
al)oiit two thousand, justly thini\ino- that the place could make l)ut a 
feeble resistance. depri\'cd, as it was, of its head antl i^arrisoned l)V 
men in a state of complete insubordination: and. if the fort had fallen, 
not only would the whites, twenty-two in number, have been destroyed, 
but the stock of ammunition and stores would lia\e made the captors 
clangorous to the other establishments on the coast. In fact, it was to 
the treacherous ferocity of the neighbouring tribes, that the recent 
catastrophe was indirectly to be imputed, inasmuch as the disposition 
in question rendered necessary- such a strictness of discipline as would, 
in a great measure, account for Mr. McLoughlin's j)i'emature death. 

From the depositions of the men, I ascertained beyond a doul)t that 
a Canadian of the iiame of Urbain Heroux had discharged the fatal 
shot. How to bring th(> fellow to justice was the question. In my 
opinion, the jurisdiction of Canada, as established by -io Geo. 3. ch. 
138, and 1 and !^ Geo. 4, ch. ♦)(!, did not extend to Russian America; 
and. on the other hand, 1 knew that the Russians had no court of crim- 
inal jurisdiction in America; Avhile, at the same time, 1 was by no 
means certain that, even if they had such a tribunal, they would take 
any cognizance of a crime that did not concern them. Lender these 
circumstances, I determined to take Heroux W'ith me to Sitka, a step 
which, ])esides being, at all (M'ents. a lesser evil than letting him go 
free, appeared to offer the only ch'.mce of making the man atone in 
some degree for his oii'ence. 

Having so far settled this matter, I demanded from four of the 
neigh])oring chiefs, with whom I had. an interview, some explanation 
with respect to their designs on the establishment: and they, while 
repudiating any imputation of the kind for themselves, admitted that 
an attack on the fort had been recommended by some rash youths, l)ut 
had been opposed by the wiser and older heads. I congratulated 
them on not having connnitted any overt act of hostility, assuring 
them that, in that case, they would have been most sever(dy punished 
both by the Russians and by ourselves. The chiefs replied that, in 
future, they w^ould so (K)nduct themselves, as to merit our entire appro- 
bation, and would be security against any attacks on the part of any 
of the neighbouring tribes. I farther took this opportunity of pre- 
paring the natives for a measure which the Hudson's Bay rom]iany 
was most anxious to introduce in this quai'ter, and which it had already 
introduced elsewhere with the happiest results, namely, the discontin- 
uance of the use of spirituous licpior in the tracU'. 



I 



K.rf lUicfK ffoin TujXirt from Select ('oiiniutf( c on tlir lIudstDi's Ihnj 
('oiiipariy. cCv. Reports from ('omm!ttii\ House of ('oik moiis^ lSo7^ 
Sess. 2, ^VoL XV. 

(Page I\'.) 11. As to those extensive regions, whether in Ru])ert"s 
Land or in the Indian Territory, in which, for the present at least, 
there can be no [)rospect of permanent settlement, to any extent, l)y 
the European race for the purposes of colonization, the opinion at 
which Your Committee have arrived is mainly founded on the follow- 
ing considerations: I". The great im])ortance to the more peophnl 
portions of l)ritish North America that law and order should, as far as 



TO THE Hudson's bay comi'anv. 37 

possible, 1)(> niiiint:iiiu'(l in tlicsc territories: 2". The fatal ett'ects which 
they l)«'lieve would iiifallihly result to the Iiufiaii poinilation from a 
system of open eompetition in the fur trade, and the consequent intro- 
duction of spirits in a far greatei* det>"ree than is the case at present; 
and 3". The prol)al)ility of the indiscriminate destruction of the more 
valuable fur-bearing animals in the course of a few years. 

1:^. For th(>se reasons Your Committee aiv of opinion that whatever 
may l)e the validity or otherwise of the rights clainied l)y the Hudson's 
Bay C'ompiinv. under the Charter, it is desirable that they should con- 
tinue to enjoy the privilege of exclusive trade, which they now possess, 
exce[)t so far as those privileges are limited by the foregoing recom- 
mendations. 

Ji'stfUHi/i 11 of Jo/ni R<it\ K'<(j. 

(Page 28.) 381>. Are you aware of any arrangement which the Kus- 
sian Compan}' have made with the Hudson's Bay Company, b}^ which 
the most valual)le portion of their fur-trading territory is leased to 
the Hudson's Bay Con)pany on certain conditions {! — There was an 
arrangement of that sort some years ago; I cannot say whether it is 
still in force: it was a lease not of the whoh\ but of the strip of land 
which you will see in the charts running along the shore. 

Test nil oinj of Sir Gt'orge S> iiipxon. 

(Pages 44— t.j.) 7<>2. Chairman.] I believe you hold an im[)ortant 
situation in the administration of the territories of the Hudson's Bay 
Company '. — I do. 

703. What is it '. — I have been Governor of their territories for many 
years. 

704. How long have you held that situation? — Thirty-seven years I 
have been their principal representati\e. 

70."). Mr. Edwaki) Ellice.J As governor the whole time? — Yes; I 
have ludd the situation of go\ern()i' the whole tim«\ 

7or). Chairman.] "\\'hat is the nature of your authority in that capac- 
\i\ '. — The supervision of the Company's atiairs; the presiding at their 
councils in the country, and the principal direction of the whole inte- 
rior management. 

7o7. A\'here do you generally reside?— I have resided for several 
years at the Red River Settlement; I have resided in Oregon; I have 
resided in Athabasca, and latterly I have I'csided in Canada. 

7o,S. Is there any fixed seat of government within the territories of 
the Hudson's Bay Company ?— There is no fixed seat of government, 
but there is a seat of council for the northern and the southern dei)art- 
ments: one at Norwayhouse. at the northern end of Lake Winnipeg, 
and the other at Michipicoton. or Moose Factory, for the southern 
department. 

7ott. Y'our authority extentls, I imagine, as w(dl oven* Rupert's Land 
as over the territory which the Company holds by license? — Over the 
whole of the Company's atiairs in North America. 

710. What is the nature^ of the council which you have mentioned? — 
The ])riiicipal ollicers of the Com])any. the chief factors, are meml)ers 
of council. If there is not a sutHcient number of chief factors the 
numl)er is made up by chief traders, who are the second class of part- 
ners, and all matters connected with the trade are discussed and deter- 
mined at this council. 



38 LEASE OK THE LISIERE 

711. ^\'hat if> the nahirc of the authoritv of the council as ilistin- 
o-uished from A-our own; arc thcv merely advisers ( — They are advi.sers, 
and tliey uiye theii- opinions and vote u})on any qu(\stion that may he 
under discussion. 

7\'2. Does the ultimate authority and decision reside in you solely, 
or is it with you in conjunction with the council!' — With me in con- 
junction with the council. 

713. Do you mean that they could outvote you and prevent your 
doino- anything- which you thought ])roperf — They could outvote me, 
l)ut it has never l)een so; in the absence of the council my authority is 
sui)i'eme; in ti'avelling through the country, or gi\ing any dii'cction 
connected with the managcMiKMit of the business, my authority must 
l)e acted upon until it be amudled or disallowed b}^ the council or the 
Company. 

* -K- * * * ■» * 

(Page 5!t.) 1018. In what way is justice administered in that country 
which is under yonr controls — As nearly as possible according to the 
laws of England; we have a very competent legal otticer. who tills the 
office of recorder at Red River Settlement. 

1011:). Supposing an, outrage takes place in a distant part of the 
country, what happens!' — The case would be tried prol)ably at Red 
River or at Norway House. 

1020. How can that be done; when a murder, for instance, takes 
place in a very distant part of the countr}-, what is then done^ — In 
one case three parties wdio Avere concerned in a murder, were remoAed 
to Canada for trial, all the way from Mackenzie's River, at great 
difficulty and great expense. 

1021. I suppose in very distant parts of the country you administer 
justice as l)est you may ^ — In many instances we have brought cases to 
Red River, where the parties have been regularly tried by jury. 

1022. For minor ott'ences what proceedings do you adopt practi- 
calh" ^ — The Indian is reprinianded and held in disfavour for some 
time. 

1023. Mr. Edward Ellice.] Will you illustrate that answin- by 
gi\ing a case which occurred at Norway House recently!' — Some 
Indian lads broke into one of our stores and they were regularly tried, 
and two of them were ti'ansported from their own district 3<>() miles 
oH' to another district; that was the entire })unishment; it was, in 
fact, no punishment; they were also severely re])i'imanded. 

102-1. CiiAiKiMAN.] ^Vhat system do you ado})t in the way of pre- 
serving discipline and proper subordination among your own officers, 
scattered over this vast extent of country, at the clifi'erent posts? — I 
do not know^ that there is any particular discipline; we g-enerally con- 
tri^e to have respectal)le men; our officers are always highly respect- 
able men, and we generally keep oi'deily servants; our servants are 
orderly and well conducted. 

102.5. Do you take care to keep a pr(>tty strict supei'vision over 
them, and does their advancement dep(>nd altogether upon their con- 
ducts —There is a very strict supervision. 

1026. Besides your own territory, I think you administer a portion 
of the territory which l)elongs to Russia, under some arrangement 
with the Russian Company ( — There is a margin of coast marked yel- 
low in the map from T)-!^ 40' up to Cross Sound, which we have rimted 
from the Russian American Company for a term of years. ' 



TO THK Hudson's hay company. 39 

U)'!!. Is tliiit tlie wliolc of that st^^]1^-Tllo strip ooos on to Mount 
Saint Klias. 

102S. Where does it hegin ^ — Near Fort Simpson, in hititude 54^; 
it runs up to Mount St. Elias. which is further north. 

1021>. Is it the whole of that strip which is inchided between the 
British t(M'i'itorv and the sea^ — We have only r(Mito(l tlie ])art between 
Fort Simpson and Cross Sound. 

lo;)0. Wliat is the date of that arrangement^— That arranocnicnt. I 
think, was entcM'cd into a])out ls;>l). 

1081. W'liat are the terms u})on which it was made; do you pay a 
rent for that huuW — The British territory runs along inland from the 
coast about 80 miles; the Russian teri'itory runs along- the coast; we 
have the right of navigation through the I'ivers to hunt the interior 
country. A misunderstanding existed upon that point in the fir.st 
instance; we were about to establish a post upon one of the rivers, 
which led to very serious ditliculties l)etween the Russian American 
Company and ourselves; we had a long correspondence, and. to guard 
against the recurrence of these difficulties, it was agreed that we 
should lease this margin of coast, and pay them a rent; the rent was, 
in the first instance, in otters; 1 think we gave 2.000 otters a year; it 
is now converted into money; we give, I think, £'l,o(»0 a year! 

1032. :Mr. Charles Fitzwilliam.] What otter is that"^— The land 
otter from the east side of the mountains; we now pay £1,500 a j^ear 
for the use of this margin of coast. 

1033. Chaikmax.] Is it a lease for a term of years ^ — I tiiink the 
term was originally lii years. 

1034. Mr. KiNXAiHi).] Have you the whole care of it, or are there 
Russian officeis in the territory^ — V\ o ha\e the entiie care of it. 

1035. Mr. Fdwahd Ellice.J That was maintained through the last 
Avar, was it not. in order that there should l)e no disturl)ance among 
the Indians?— Yes. 

1086. Chairman.] Was any inconvenience sustained before this 
arrangement was made with regard to the management of the Indians, 
inasmuch as it was found that s})irits wei'e introduced among them bj' 
parties com])eting with one another for tlu^ fui' ti'ade ^ — Yes. there 
was a great abuse of spirituous li(|uors. 

1037. Was that the main inducement to you and to the Russian 
Company to make this arrangements — It was not the principal induce- 
ment, but it was one of the inducements. A year or two afterwards 
1 entered into an arrangement at Sitka with the (lovernor of Sitka 
that the use of spirituous liquors should be entirely prohibited. A 
murderous scene took ])lace under our own eyes at Sitka, arising from 
a del)auch among the Indians, and we came to an agreement then that 
litpior should no longer be introduced into the country. 

1038. Mr. KiNNAiRi). I Has that agreement been rigidly kept on 
their i)artS — It h;is been rigidly k'ept. I believe, by them as well as 
l)y us. 

I08t>. Mr. (ioROON.j With regard to the administration of justice, 
is it not the case that under the Acts by which the Company exercise 
jurisdiction, viz. the 43 Geo. 3. and the 1 tSc 2 (tco. 4, the Company 
are bound, under a penalty of i'o.ooo. to transmit cases of felony for 
trial to Canada? — The ex-recorder of Rupert's Land will be here in 
the ccnirse of a day or two. and I should rather pri^ftM" that he should 



40 LEASE OF THE LISIEHE 

answci' the i|iiestioiu and ('X})laiii all iiiattcrs coimocted with tlie 
adiniiiistratioii of the law. 

i<)40. I suppose you would also wish to defer till the recorder is 
here, the answei- to the next (luestion which I should put, viz. how 
often that had Ixhmi done^ — There have only been two cases transmitted 
to Canada in my time; one is the case of those Indians in Mackenzie's 
Kiver. a few years ag'o, of whom I spoke. 

1041. How long has there been a recorder estahlished at the Red 
Kiver ^ — In 18oi> t\w tirst recorder was ap})ointed there. 

1042. Mr. Grocax.J What was the name of the recorder in 183*J^ — 
Adam Thom. 

1(>43, Mr. Grooax.] How was justice administered previously to a 
recorder being- api)ointed^ — There was never a criminal case w'ithin 
my recollection previously to 1S89, except the case to which I am 
alluding, in Mackenzie's Kiver. 

1044. With regard to the introduction of spirits into the territory; 
are spirits allowed to those who are in the employment of the Com- 
pany ( — I may say that the whole importation of spirits, from the year 
lb47 to the year TS.^iT). a\(M'aged under .^.(tOO gallons into the whole 
country. 

(Page (54.) 1112. Mr. Roebuck.] What do you mean by possessory 
rights; do you mean rights under the charter^ — Rights as British sub- 
jects previously to the treaty. 

lli;>. Had N'ou possession of land^ — W^e had possession of land. 

1114. How did you acquire it^ — Under the license to trade. 

1115. But that is not possession of land? — Yes, under the license to 
trade we had various ]K)ssessions in the country. 

. 1116. Do you luiderstand that a license to trade gives you posses- 
sion of the land^ — We understood so. 

HIT. What is the interpretation which you give to the words "a 
right to trade", that it gives you a right to the land!' — We conceive so. 

1118. In fee-simple? — I do not say under what tenure, l)ut we con- 
sider that it gives us a right to tlu^ land. 

sfr * * * -/- -X- * 

(Pages 05-()T.) 1142. I think you said that the (lovernment of the 
country was vested in a council? — Yes. 

114l->. Are the transactions secret? — Not at all. 

1144. Are minutes kept? — Yes. 

1145. And is it open to the public; may anylxxly have access? — All 
criminal and other legal cases are tried at: Red River, and are open to 
the public. There was a trial by jury last year at Norway House 
which was open to the pul)lic; but our own deliberations with refer- 
ence to the management of th(> ti'ad(^ of the country are not open to 
the public. 

* •:;- ->:- -Jr ■;;- -x- * 

1150. Mr. LowK. I In whom does the executive^ power reside; in the 
Governor exclusiv(dy? — The (xovernor and his council. 

1151. The Council of Factors? — Y'es. 

1152. Consisting of 16? — Y"es; and where there is not a suflicient 
number of chief factors, the nnml)er is made u\) by chief traders; that 
is as regards the Company's ati'airs. the business of the country. 

1158. As n^oards the oo\ernment (»f the territorv. how is it gov- 



TO THE HTDSON's hay (^»MFAXV. 41 

enu'cl: I am now speaking" not ttf tr:uli'. hut of the uciu'nil o()\('riiiii(.'iit 
of the t(M-i'itorv ^ — In the Red Kivor Sottloment. in the district of 
Assinihoiji, the present recorder is the governor of the disti'ict. 
1 ir)4. He has the executive power as well a-^ the judicial ( Yes, 
1 155. What extent of territory is that over ^ —The district of Assini- 
l)()ia takes 50 miU's by th(> compass round the Ked River Seltleinent. 
115*>. Has he any assistance in that, or does he do it entirely him- 
self^ — Tlie fact is there is very little to be done in that respect. 

1157. What there is to l)e donc> he does^ — Yes; oui' oaols arc almost 
always empty: they scarcely ever have an inmate. 

1158. As to the rest of tiie territory, how is that o-overned^ — By 
mys(df and the council. 

1151>. Have you any legislative^ powei'^ — Xo. 

1100. You cannot make laws in the teri-itory? — We can make laws 
as far as regards the management of our own aft'airs. which is the oidy 
case in which we have occasion to make laws. 

1101. As to the t(Muire of land, how is it regulaled: what law is in 
force in the territory:? — Thi^ law of England. 1 imagine. 

1U^'2. Up to what periods — Up to the present time. 

1103. Y'ou spoke of a lease of t»yt> years: wdiy is the land not given in 
free-hold^ — Our counsel in this country recommended that lease. 

1164. Do you know why? — No. 

11»)5. Who grants the h^ase ? — The Company: geniM-ally the governor 
of the disti'ict. 

1100. Tiider the seal of the Company? — Under the seal of the Com- 
pany. 

1107. Have you a seal of the Company out there ( — Y es, as Governoi- 
in-Chief. 

1108. Has the Comi)any in London any legislative power: can it 
make laws for the ti'rritory ? — It gives instructions with regard to the 
mode of conducting the business. 

110i>. There is no power of making laws. then, at all. as I under- 
stand, for the territory? — On the subject of the laws. I would beg to 
refer to the recorder. 

1170. Mr. F^DWARi) Ellu'E.] Is it not the case that the directors in 
London have supervision of the acts of the council ( — Y'es. 

1171. Mr. Lowe.] The (Jovernor is the Executive? — Yes. 
117:i. All over the territory? — Y'es. 

1173. There is no legislative power'at all. as I understand: there is 
no power to make laws in anybody ? — AVe make such laws as are nec- 
essary. 

1174. You do not make Statutes at all ?- — No. 

1175. Do you make Ordinances^ — No. we have never had occasion 
to make Ordinances: we have passed certain Resolutions of Council. 

1170. Are they considered l)in(ling in the nature of laws on the 
inhabitants of th(> territory? — They are principally in reference to our 
own trade: tlu^ laws are administered as nearly as j)ossibl(> in accord- 
ance with the laws of England by the recorder of the country, and the 
late recorder is now on his wa}' to London, and will be forthcoming in 
the course of a day or two. 

1177. Where do these 10 factors, who form the council. live?--All 
over the country. 

1178. Are they summoned every year to meet? — A sullicient num- 
ber assemble for the pur])ose of holding a council every year. 



42 LKASK OF TIIK LISIKKK 

1179. Where do they nicety — At Norwuy IIousi^. 

llSd. At \vh:it timeV— (Jenenilly al)out"the loth, or 15th. or -unh 
of fliiiie. 

llsl. Mr. Bell. I ^^'hat mmiher is considered sulHeient^ — 1 think 
seven factors with the (loveriior. 

1182. Mr. Lowe.] Does the public ever attend the discussions of 
this council; — No, never; the public would be our own serxants. 

1183. Mr. KixNAiRi). I There is a council at Red Kiver^ — Yes, at 
Assiniboia, where the recorder resides, and where the white population 
is assembled. 

1184. Mr. Lowe. J Has the recorder and councils — Yes. 

1185. ^Vllat does that consist of ^ — Certain inhabitants of the colony. 
I think there are 10 or 12; the clergy, the Koman Catiiolic and Prot- 
estant Bishops, the principal inhabitants of the settlement. 

1186. By whom are they selected^ — By the Company, on the recom- 
mendation of the governor of the country, or the application of any 
of the parties. 

118T. Mr. Adderley.] Does the Governor-in-Chief sit with the 
council himself; is he a meml)erof the councils — Yes; hejs the presi- 
dent of the council, and the recorder is the law oflicer. 

1188. The members of the council are nominated by him^~-He sug- 
gests tliem. 

1189. Mr. Bell.] Ls there a recorder. inde]iendent of the Gov- 
ernor? — Y"es. 

1190. At the Red River and at Norway House also? — No; the recor- 
der of Red River goes to Norway House. 

1191. Mr. Lowe.] Have you any magistrates, justices of the peace i — 
We consider all our factors as magistrates. 

1192. Do they hold any conunission from the Crown, or from the 
Governor?- -Their connnission as factors is undi>rstood to answer the 
purpose of a commission as magistrates, 

1193. Have they power to imprison, and to decide any matter? — 
We have never had an}^ case of imprisonment. 

1194. Mr. Grogan.] Does the charter specialh' confer on the Com- 
pany a power of government, such as we are now speaking of, namely, 
of imprisoning parties, or is it only a license to trade?—! must l)eg to 
n>fer you to the charter. 

(Pages 74-75) 1378. The Governor and Company in England appoint 
the Governor in Hudson's Bay ?^— They do. 

1379, According to their will and |)Ieasure, and his ap]X)intment is 
revoked at their will and Y)leasure? — It is so. 

1380, So that, in fact, th(> Governoi- out there is tiie d(j\vnright 
servant of the Gox'ernoi- and Company here? — He is positively their 
servant, 

1381, And wliat they desire him to do he is bound (o do? — He is, 

1382, ^^4ler(> does he live usually when he gets to that country?^! 
have been the (irovernor for the last 37 years, and I have lived nearl}'' 
all over North Ani(>rica, I have lived inOr(\gon, I havi> lived in Hud- 
son's Bay, in Red Ri\-er, at York Factory, and in Athabasca. I have 
travelled the whole country over, 

1383, There are no headcjuarters of the Government, then, and the 
talk about the Governor and council is a mere idle statement? — No, 
Th(^ (rovcrnor of Assiniboia is resident uyion the spot. 



TO THK HI'DSOn's may COMl'ANY. 43 

18S4. 1 ivinark that you alwiiys iilliide to your Red River Govern- 
iiiont at Assiiiiboiii: did you not ju.st now say that tliat sini])ly occupiiHl 
a circuit of .')(! miles by tlu^ c()Uii)ass^ — Yes. 

1385. And tiio wliolc country, you have told us. and the niaj) tells 
as, also, is as lai'ue as Europe^ — Yes. 

1386. So that when you talk of that sui;dl territory, it is like talk- 
ing- of San Marino, in Europe^ — Criminals would ho sent down to 
Assinihoia. 

1387. If a murder were committed on the shores of the Arctic Sea, 
would the man l)e sent down to Assinihoia^ — Yes, in the first instance. 

138S. Have you ever known an instance of a murder on the shores 
of the Arctic 8ea^— Not on the shores of the Arctic Sea, hut within 
the Arctic circle. 

138i>. Can" you state that case tome; — I cannot o"ive all thedetails 
from memory. 

131H). j\Ir. Edward Emjce.] Was that the case which you spoke of 
before to-day^ — Yes: Creole Le Graisse was one; there were three. 

131U. Mr. Roebuck. J So that in your long life there of 30 odd 3-ears 
you have known three eases ^--That was one particular case; those 
three persons were accomplices; they were sent to Canada for trial. 

1392. Are those the only cases which 3"ou recollects — The only cases 
in the Arctic regions, t!iat I recollect. 

1393. How many criminals do you suppose are aniuially tried at 
Assiniboia!' — I think the whole of the criminal cases within my recol- 
lection, are but 19 in the 37 years. 

1394. And that you call administering justice in that country ( — Yes. 

1395. ^^'e may take that as a specimen of the administration of jus- 
tice in those countries under the rule of the Hudson's Bay Company? — 
Of the absence of crime, I should hope; we claim to ourselves great 
credit. 

139(!. Do you mean to say that in your temire of oHicc^ there for 37 
years there has been only in fact 19 criminals in that country ^— I 
think so. 

13i>7. Mr. Edward Ellick. | Are those serious cases or minor of- 
fences { — Serious cases. 

1398. Mr. RoEHUCK.] Take murders: do you mean to say that in all 
your term of office of upwards of 30 \'ears, there have been only 19 
murders committed in the Avhole of the Hudson's Bay territory S — 
There were 11 peoi)le killed in this particular case which I am 
referring to. 

1399. Do you mean to say that in the 37 years of your go\'ernnient 
of that country, there have been only lt» murders connnittcHlS — li> 
cases; I said there were 11 nmrders in that first case which I spoke of. 

l-fDO. I want to ascertain what has l)een the administration of jus- 
tice in that country; I want to know how many persons have been 
brought to justice; you tell me 19 S — Since 1821 there have been 19 
cases of homicide in which the Hudson's Ray Company's people were 
concerned; in 11 punishment was inflicted; one ]:>risoner was tried and 
acquitted; one was a case of justifiable honucide: three accused parties 
died l)efore being captun^d, and in three* cases there was no evidence 
to proceed against them; those are the 19 cases. 

1401. Do you say tliat that fairly represents the state of crime in 
that countrvS — I do. 

1402. Do vou mean to sav that since Ls^I, the date tliat \'ou have 



44 LEASE (»F THE LISIERE 

(luoted, tliorc havt' Ihhmi only those 19 oases of murder in that coiin- 
trv^ — In wliieh tlie Coiiijxiny's people were coneerned: in the wars 
that take place in the plains auiono- the Hlaekt'eet there are cases in 
which we can not intertere. 

(Page 1)1.) 1732. (Chaii-nian.) I thiidv you made an arranjj-(Miient 
with the Russian Company by wliicli you hold under lease a portion of 
their territory ? — Yes. 

1733. I believe that arranuenient is that you hold that strip of 
country which intervenes l)etween your territory and the s(nu and that 
3'ou i;-ive them t'l,.")O0 a year for it^ — Yes. 

1734. \Vh:it wei'e your objects in making- that arrangement? — To 
prevent diliiculties existing l)et\veen the Russians and ourselves; as a 
peace oli'ering. 

1735. What was the nature of those dithculties? — We were desirous 
of passing- through their territory, which is inland from the coast about 
30 miles. There is a margin of 30 miles of coast belonging to the 
Russians, ^^'e had the right of navigating the rivers falling into the 
ocean, and of settling the interior country. Ditliculties arose between 
us in regard to the trade of the country, and to remoAe all those ditii- 
cultjes we agreed to give them an annual allowance. 1 think, in the 
first instance. 2.001) otter skins, and afterwards of A'L.jOO a yeai'. 

1736. Before that arrangement was made did you find that spirits 
got introduced, owing to a sort of competition between your traders 
and those of the Russian Company? — Yes; large quantities of spirits 
wei'e used previously to that. 

1737. And you found that very injurious? — Yes. 

1738. During the late war which existed ])etween Russia and Eng- 
land, 1 believe that some arrangem(»nt was made between you and the 
Russians by which von agreed not to molest one another? — Yes, such 
an arrangement was made. 

1730. By the two companies? — Yes; and th(^ go\'i'rnment confirmed 
the arrangement. 

1740. You agi'eed that on neither side should there be any molesta- 
tion or interference with the ti'ade of the different parties? — Yes. 

1741. And I believe that that was strictly observed during the whole 
war? — Yes. 

1742. Mr. Bkli>. ] ^^'hi('h (lovernment contirmed the arrangement, 
the Russian or the Eni;iish. or both? — Both (lovcM'iniients, 



(Pages 190-191.) 3.")72. What is your opinion of the soil and climate 
f Vancouver's Island, and of its capabilities f( 



Text / 111(1/1 1/ (if Ml', ■hnilcx i'oojX'l' 

3.")72. A\'hat is your opinion of 
of Vancouver's Island, and of its capabilities for a settlement on a 
large scale? — Its climate, in every sense of the word, is superior to 
that of Great Britain, and its capabilities of agriculture are of a con- 
siderable extent. The land is partially wooded and jiartially open with 
prairie. There is plenty of room there for a large population. 

3573. In point of fact the j)opulation has increased \ei"v slowly, I 
believe'?— It has decreased since 1 ha\e ])een there. 

3574. To Avhat causes do you attribute that? — The maladministra- 
tion of the government of the Hudson's Bay C/Ompany. 

3575. To what particulars do you especially refer? — There is no 
encouragement for immigration into the country. Many i^eople have 
come to \'ancouver's Island, and have left it; they ha\-e approved of 



TO THE Hudson's bay company. 45 

the soil, of the climate, and of the capahilities of the ooiuitr}'; but 
they have objected to being- subject to the Hudson's Bay Conlpan3^ 
If the British Government were established there, that would be the 
oidy necessary step for the British Government to take. There are 
thousands of peoi)le in the neighborhood of San Francisco and Cali- 
fornia who would gladly go to a British colony, provided it was under 
a new administration. 

857t). You moan if X'ancouver's Island was administered directly as 
a British colony, and not indirectly under the control of the Hudson's 
Bay Company i — Directh'. 

3577. Do 3-ou believe that to be the general feeling of the inhabi- 
tants i — I am sure of it. 

3578. Will 3'ou point out to the Committee in Avhat manner the 
administration of the Hudson's Bay Company operates to check colon- 
ization i — In the tirst place, with respect to their courts of justice, the 
people have not contidence in them; there are only a small number, 
but nevertheless they are unanimous in their opinion, they have no 
contidence in the courts of justice; our supreme judge has not been 
educated to the bar; I believe all the knowledge that he gains is from 
Ijooks; for instance, before he can decide upon a case, he has to refer 
to his books even in the most common case. 

(Pages 210-211) The Honourable William Hexey Draper, C. B., 
called in; and Examined. 

4038. Chairman.] What situation do 3"0U hold in Canada ;f — I am 
Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas of Upper Canada. 

4039. How long have you held that situation? — I have held the 
office of Chief Justice a little more than a 3'ear, but I have been upon 
the Bench of Upper Canada for nearh' 10 3'ears. 

404<». 'What other public situations have vou held in Canada? — I 
was appointed to the Executive Council of Upper Canada in the vear 
1836. I was appointed Solicitor-general of Upper Canada in 1837. I 
was a])pointed Attorne3'-general of Upper Canada in 1840. I held that 
office until some time in the latter part of 1842; I was re-appointed in 
1844; and I continued to be Attorney-general from that time until I 
was appointed to the Bench. 

4041. How long have j-ou been resident in Canada? — I landed in 
Quebec on the 16th or 17th of May 1820; I have been a continual resi- 
dent in Canada since that period. 

4042. Under what circumstances are 3^ou now visiting this coun- 
tr3'? — I was requested 1)3' the Government of Canada, through the 
medium of two of its membei's, to undertake the duty of t-oming to 
Eng-land for the purpose of watching the investigation which, it had 
been comnumicated to them, was to take place before a Commit- 
tee of the House of Commons, with a view of pressing whenever I 
deemed it necessar3^ for the interests of the province, certain views 
which the Government of the province adopted in reference to their 
rights and interests in this (question. I had written insti'uctions from 
the Government of Canada to that eli'ect, which I can hu' ])cfore the 
Committee, if thev desire it. The3' were comnumicated to me through 
the provincial secretary, and emanating from the Government, giving 
me general directions what I was to do. 

4043. Sir John Pakington.] As before this Committee? — Incom- 
ing to England: generally pressing upon Her Majest3'\s Government 

26626— AF 4 



46 LEASE OF THE LISTERE 

the views of the Government of Canada, as well as attending- before 
the Committee from time to time to wtitch the nature of the proceed- 
ings ;ind what is goino- on. 

Testimony of Big Jit Jlononihlt E. EUict\ M. 1\ 

(Page 328.) 5825. Do you conceive the rights of self-government 
to have ])een given by the charter!' — Certainty: and the country has 
])een governed, so far as the Hudson's liay Company's territories are con- 
cerned, under those rights; there has never l)een any other authority for 
.the government of the country or for the administration of justice; it 
being always understood that the Crown took the power, if it should 
see right, in the Act enabling it to grant the license, to constitute an 
independent magisterial power, which it has never exercised. 

-■<•*****« 

(Page 330.) 5836. Do you mean by that, that you think that it 
would be advantageous for the company to withdraw as it were to the 
more northern part of their territory, and to leave for gradual settle- 
ment the southern portion of their country ^ — I am of opinion that the 
existence and maintenance of the Hudson's Bay Company, for the pur- 
pose of temporarily governing this country, until you can form settle- 
ments in it, is much more essential to Canada and to England than it 
is to the company of adventurers trading to Hudson's Bay. 

******* 

(Page 332.) 5848. Do you consider that the country which the com- 
pan}" hold under license is very valuable as a fur-trading country ? — 
Some part of it on the other side of the Rocky Mountains, especially 
on the rivers which flow up to these mountains, I believe to be very 
productive of good furs. I do not think that it is the most profitable 
part of their trade; the most profitable part of the trade is their old 
territory, and the licensed territory to the east of the Rocky Mountains. 



Extracts from the IIudi<on''s Bay territories and Yancouver''s Island, 
dec, hy R. M. Martin, London, 18Jf9. 

(Page 29.) Previous to an investigation of other branches of the 
subject, it will be advisable to examine the proceedings of the Russian 
American Fur Company, whose territory includes all the Pacific coast 
and islands, north of 54^ -iO', and the whole of the continent west of 
141 , the Asiatic coast of the Pacific north of 51^, the islands of the 
Kurik' group to the south point, in 45^ 50'. This extensive territor}' 
has been granted to a Russian American Fur Company, which was 
cstal)lished under charter from the Emperor Paul, 8th July, 1799, 
with power to occupy and bring under the dominion of Russia, all 
territories north or south of 55^, not previously occupied and placed 
under subjection by another nation. The Russian Company and Hud- 
son's Bay Company were brought into collision, and the latter experi- 
enced considera])le loss in their endeavour to prevent British territor}^ 
and the adjacent regions being occupied by the Muscovites. In 1834, 
the Hudson's Bay Company expended sevei'al thousand pounds in an 
expedition to esta))lish trading stations on the large river Stikine, in 
56^ 20'. The Russians resented hy force this procedure of the Com- 
pany, although England claimed the privilege of navigating the rivers 



TO THE Hudson's bat company. 47 

tiowino- from the interior of the Continent to the Pacific, across the 
line of ooundary established under the treat}" of 1S25. The British 
Government re<iuired redress for this infraction of the treaty; and 
after negotiation between the two Governments, and the two chart- 
ered Companies, it was agreed in 1S39, that from 1st June, 1S4(), the 
Hudson's Bay Company should enjoy for ten years the exclusive use 
of the continent assiontnl to Russia by iMr. Cannino- in 1S25, and 
extending froni o-i^ 40' north, to Cape Spencer, near 58 north, in 
consideration of the annual payment of 2,U0(» otter skins to the Rus- 
sian American Company, whose head quarters are at Sitka. The 
charter of the Russian Company was renewed in 1839, when they had 
36 hunting and fishing establishments. Their stock bears a high 
premium. 

(Page 31.) The proceedings of the Russian American Company 
appear to be guided by political as well as by commercial motives. 
In 1800 the Russian Minister informed the United States (xovernment 
that the ' Russian Fur Company claimed the whole coast of America 
on the Pacific and the adjacent islands, from Behring's strait south- 
ward to and beyond the mouth of the Columbia river '. (Greenhow, 
p. 275.) An endeavour was also made by the Russians to occupy the 
Sandwich Islands. The Hudson's Bay Company materially aided Mr. 
Canning in 1825, in the restriction of the Russians to their present 
northern territories. 

(Pages 111-112) After a careful examination of all circumstances, 
there can be no hesitation in saying, that the Hudson's Bay Company 
have well fulfilled the objects for which their Charter was granted in 
1670. Without any aid from the Crown — without an\" drain upon the 
national exchequer,— opposed by American and even English rivahy, — 
subject to plunder and devastation by the fleets and forces of the French 
and Russian Governments, — struggling against an inclement climate, in 
a sterile soil, — shut out from maritime communication with England, 
except for a few months in the year, — and amidst hosts of wild, war- 
like, treacherous, and mere hunting savages, the Hudson's Bay Com- 
pany have acquired and maintained for England, l)v a sagacious and 
prudent policy, by honoural)le, and, above all, by Christian conduct, 
that portion of the North American continent which lies between the 
Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, north of the 49th degree of latitude, 
extending over more than tln'ic million square miles — (3,060,000.) 

But for the Hudson's Bay Company England, would prol)ably have 
been shut out from the Pacific, for, on the 5th of April, 1814, [1824] a 
convention was signed between the United States and Russia, (to which 
England was no party,) making the 54th parallel the l)oundarv of their 
respective dominions. Tiie settlements on the Hudson's Bay Conq)any 
on the Columbia River and in the Oregon region defeated this project. 



Rxtroct from The Year Book of British Columltla^ B. E. Gosncll^ 

Victoria, B. a 

(Page 14.) It is an interesting fact that the settlement of the Nootka 
aftair left matters on this Coast in a very uncertain, indefinable statu, 
quo. For some years a long stretch of the Pacific territory was in 
reality "No Man's" land, and it is not in any sense due to the pre- 
science or wisdom of Bi'itish statesmen of those days that it is British 
territory- to-dav. To the enterprise of the North-West Company and 



48 LEASE OF THE LISIERE 

of its leg-itimate successor, the Hudson's Bay Company, is due any 
credit that may attach to an accomplishment wc now appraise so 
highly. The traders of that pow(u-ful organization pushed their way 
through to the coast by way of New Caledonia and the southern 
passes of the Rocky Mountains, carryino- with them the supremacy of 
the British tlao- and extendino- the authority of the Canadian laws, and 
finally occupied i)racticall3' the whole of the Pacific Coast from Rus- 
sian America to Mexico. That we do not occupy the whole of the 
Pacific Slope to-day was no fault of theirs. However, in placing- an 
estimate upon the statesmanship of Great Britain, which permitted by 
a policy of lahsez falre so much territory to slip through her hands, 
we must consider the circumstances and conditions of the times, the 
remoteness of the country, the almost total lack of knowledge con- 
cerning it, and the general indifi'erence which existed regarding its 
future. Men ofttimes are, but cannot ordinarily be expected to be, 
wiser than they know. In view of all that has happened to, and in, 
the North American Continent since that time there is reason to be 
thankful that there has been left to us so glorious a heritage as we 
now possess. 

Meinorandimi resjyecting the heaver^ hy C. Hart Merriairi^ Chief Biolo- 
gist of the United States Department of Agi'iciilture. 

The American Beaver is an amphibious mammal, inhabiting fresh 
water streams and ponds, in which it builds its well-known houses and 
obtains a large part of its food. The food consists mainly of the roots 
of the fresh water pond lily and the bark of willows and poplars. 

The Beaver is an animal of the interior. It does not live along the 
coasts or in salt or brackish water marshes or estuaries. 

Audubon and Bachman in their great work "The Quadrupeds of 
North America'"', in speaking of the Beaver, state "the localities where 
its dams formerly e^xisted are on pure running streams, and not on the 
sluggish rivers near the sea coast." (Vol. I, pp. 357-358, 1851). 

The Encyclopedia Britannica (!»th Ed.) states that the Beaver inhab- 
its "lakes, ponds, and rivers, as well as those narrow creeks which 
connect the lakes together. They genei'ally, however, prefer flowing 
waters, prol)a])ly on account of the advantages afl'orded by the current 
for transporting the materials of their dwellings." 

R. Lydekkcr of the British Museum, states in the Royal Natural 
History, "In America beavers generally select as their haunts a well 
timbered district traversed by a narrow stream." (Vol. Ill, p. 101.). 

Sir John Richardson, the renowned British explorer, states in his 
great work, "Fauna Boreali-Americana'or the Zoology of the North- 
ern Parts of British America," that the best account of the Beaver is 
that given by Sanmel Hcarne, whom he quotes. Hearn states: "Where 
the Beavers are nmnerous they are found to inhabit lakes, ponds, and 
rivers, as well as those narrow creeks which connect the numerous 
lakes with which this country abounds. The Beavers that build their 
houses in small rivers or creeks in which water is liable to be drained 
off' when the back supplies are dried up by the frost are wonderfully 
taught by instinct to provide against that evil by making a dam quite 
across the river at a convenient distance from their houses". 

Washington, D. C, May i, 190 J. 



PROPOSITION IN. 1874 FOR SURVEY OF BOUNDARY. 

[XoTE. — The following documents, contained in the Canadian Sessional Paper No, 
125, Vol. XI, 1878, were omitted from its publication in the British Case, Appendix, 
Vol. I, pages 162-296.] 

Luut. GdVcrnor Trutch to the Canadian Seci^etavy of State., 

No. 3.] Government House, 

BritlsJi Columbia.^ 19th January. 187 J^. 

Sik: With reference to 1113' despatch. No. 69, of the 11th Ma}', 1872, 
to the Honora1)lo the Secretary of State for the Provinces, and his 
replies, No. 97, of the 27th July, and No. 1(»6, of September 2sth of 
the same year, 1 have the honor to enclose herewith a copy of an 
address to me from the Legislative Assembh' of this Province, 
requesting- me to urge further upon the Federal Government the 
necessity of taking immediate steps for having the boundary line 
between this Province and Alaska established and defined. I also 
enclose a Minute of my Executive Council supporting the request 
preferred in this address; and, in accordance therewith, and upon the 
grounds stated by my Ministers. I l)eg you to lay this despatch and its 
enclosures before His Excellency the Governor General, and to recom- 
mend the representation therein conveyed to His Excellenc3''s favor- 
able consideration. 

I have. &c., Joseph W. Trutch. 

The Hon. D. Christie, 

Secretary of State for Canada., Ottawa. 



Co2)y of a Report of a Cinmnittee of the Honorahle the Executive Coun- 
cil ., approved hy His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor on the 16th 
January. 187 Jf.. 

On a memorandum, dated 12th Jiuuiary, 1874, from the Honorable 
the Attorney Cleneral reported that an Order of Council of 5th July, 
1S72. strongly representing the advisableness of inunediate steps being- 
taken to dehnc the l)oundary line between Ala>ka and British Colum- 
bia, was forwarded by His Honor the Lieutenant Governor to His 
Excellency the (iovernor General. 

That the Provincial Government has been informed that the matter 
is now under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. 

That by a unanimous resolution of the House of Asseinlily, passed 
on the 7tli instant, an Address was presented to His Honor the Lieu 
tenant Governor, requesting His Honor to urge the speedy settlement 

49 



50 PROPOSITION IN 1874 

of the (luostioii. That it i.s of the greatest consequence that Her Maj- 
esty's Cxovernnient should be impressed with the necessity and impor- 
tance of hastening- such settlement, as an alk^ged conflict of authority 
between the United States authorities at Wrangel and British Colum- 
1)ia miners and traders has already arisen and as a not im])r()bable 
repetition thereof may lead to serious complications. 

Tlie Honorable Attorney General reconmiends that should this 
I'cport be ai)proved, His Honor the Lieutenant-Governor be respect- 
fully retiuested to cause a copy thereof to be forwarded to His Excel- 
lencT the Governor-General for his consideration and action thereon. 

The Committee advise that the recommendation l)e approved. 

Certified. 

W. J. Armstkong, 

Clerl\ Executive ComwU. 



[Enclosure. 



To His Honor the Honorable Joseph Wm. Trutch, 

Lieutenant (lorernor of the Province of BrUish Cohunhijt. 

May it please Your Honor: 

We, Her Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assemljly of British 
Columbia, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to approach your Honor Avith our 
respectful request, that your Honor will be pleased to take into consideration the fol- 
lowing Resolution of the House: 

That, whereas, the recent discovery of rich and extensive gold mines in the North- 
ern portion of the Province has greatly increased the imi)ortance and urgency of 
having the lioundary between British Columbia and Alaska properly established and 
defined; and, whereas, the boundary of the 30 mile belt of American territory run- 
ning along a part of the seaboard, seriously affects vital questions bearing upon navi- 
gation and commerce, be it therefore resolved; That a respectful Address he presented 
to His Honor the Lieutenant Governor, recommending him to urge upon the Fed- 
eral Government the necessity of taking immediate steps for having the said boundary 
established and defined. 

J. RoLAXD Hett, 

Clerk of the Afwenifili/. 

8th January, 1874. 



Sir Edmard Thoridon to Captain Caiaeron. 

Washington, Fehrvary 18th ^ 187 Jf.. 

Sir: I have the honor to enclose two despatches, under flying seal, 
addressed to you by Earl Granville with regard to the Alaska Boundary, 
and a copy of a letter from General Humphreys of the United States 
Engineer Department, containing an estimate of the amount considered 
necessary for the survey of that Boundary. 

The latter document has ])een furnished me by ]\lr. Eish, l)ut he did 
not send me a copy of Cai)tain Kaymond's report to which General 
Humphreys refers. I presume that it was either too long to be easily 
copied, or that it contained passag"es which he does not wish me to see. 

The maps accompaiu'ing Lord Granville's despatch No. 1, are sent 
separately but also b}" post. 
I am, &c., 

Edward Thornton. 

Captain Cameron, R. X., &c., &e., &c. 



FOR SURVEY OF HOUNDARY. 51 

[Enclosure.] 

Foreign Office, Jdiiiinrii 29t1i, 1874- 
Sir: I have received from the Colonial Office a copy of a (lesi)atch from the Gov- 
ernor General of Canada, which refers to certain documents reijuired hy you, to assist 
you in dra\vin>j: up a report which you have l)een requested by the Canadian Ciovern- 
meiit to furnish in regard to tlie Alaska llouiidary, and I send you herewith the fol- 
lowing documents which it is thought will l)e of use to you: 

1. The Convention iK'tween Russia and the I'nited States, of April, 1824. 

2. The Convention l)etween Great Britain and the United States, of Fel)ruary, 1825. 
8. The Treaty between Russia and the United States, of March, 1867. 

4. Maps of the territory. No map was attached to the Convention of 1825, and it 
is not known what maj) was used l)y the negotiators, but those now sent have been 
furnished by the 15oard of Admiralty. 

Sir E. Thornton will l)e instructed to ask the United States Government if they 
have any ol>jection to furnish, for your use, a copy of a report drawn up by the 
American Engineer Department, and if he can procure one to forward it to you. 
I am, &c., 

Texteruex. 
Captain Camerox, R. A., &c., &.('., &c. 



J//'. Fish to Sir Edward Thornton. 

Depart^ient of State, 
. Washington, 17 Feh 1874- 
The Right Honorable Sir Edward Thornton, K. C. B. Etc. , etc. , etc. 

Sir: Refernno- to 3'our verbal request to Mr. Davis yesterdav, I 
have now the honor to transmit a copy of General Humphrey's letter 
of January :^l>th, 1873, to the Secretary of War, containing an estimate 
of the appi'opriation necessary to be made to carry into effect the 
President's reconnuendation in regard to the boundary line between 
Alaska and the British possessions. 

I have the honor to be with the highest consideration, Sir, 
Your obedient servant. 

Hamilton Fish. 

[Enclosure:] 
General Humph rfijs to the Secretary of War. 

Office of the Chief of Exgineers, 
Washhigton, D. C, Jamiarn 29th, 1873. 

Sir: In reply to the communication of the 11th ultimo, from the Department of 
State, asking for an estimate of appropriation necessary to carry into effect the Presi- 
dent's recommendation in regard to the boundary line between Alaska and the British 
Possessions, I beg leave to state that owing to the rugged character of the country 
along the line between the head of the Portland Channel and Mount St. Elias and 
thence north to the Arctic Ocean, winch renders it imitossiliie or nearly so, it will l)e 
absolutely impracticable to run the line I'ontinuously in the ordinary way, and the 
plan that jiromises the greatest degree of accuracy attainal)le under the circumstances 
IS that of ('ajjtain C. W. Raymoml, Corps of Engineers, whose duties upon the recon- 
naisance of tiie Yukon River in ISfit), rendered him familiar with many of the obsta- 
cles to be met with in that country in the prosecution of similar surveys. 

He was, therefore, directed to prei)are an estimate of the time an<l cost of running 
this boundary line, and his rejiort on this subject is submitted herewith. 

The linecommencesat thesoutlierimiostpoint of Princeof Wales Island, 54 degrees 
40 uunutes north latitude, and between the i:>lst and biSrd degree of longitude west 
from (Greenwich, thence ascends to the north along the Portland channel until it 
strikes the 56th degree of north latitude, thence follows thesunnnitof the mountains 
parallel to the coast until it intersects the 141st degree of west longitude, and thence 
along said meridian of longitude north to the Frozen Ocean. 



52 PROPOSITION IN 1874 FOR SURVEY OF BOUNDARY. 

Whenever the summit of the mountains, parallel to the coast, i)rove to be at a 
greater distance from the ocean than ten marine leagues, the l)oun(lary line shall l)e 
parallel to the winding of the coast and not more than ten marine leagues from it. 

Cai)tain Raymonds estimates the time necessary to fix the line in the V>est manner 
practicable, to be nine years in the field and one in the office to complete the mapping 
of the line and preparation of report. 

This estimate of cost is, for the first year, i;213,609; for the second year $205,227; 
for each of the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh years, $173,767; for the eighth 
and ninth vears, $97,009 each; and for the tenth vear, §50,000; making a total of 
§1,531,689. ■ 

In view of the great cost of marking the line to the extent practica))le, it might be 
found sufficient, for present requirements, to establish only those jioints on it neces- 
sary to determine the limits of territory upon the lands accessible to settlers and 
upon the navigable waters and rivers. 

This will materially reduce the time and expense. 

The points which appear to be necessary to fix are as follows, — viz: — 1st. After 
the establishment of an observatory at Sitka, to fix the southernmost point of Prince 
of Wales Island, ascend the Portland channel, and fix the point on the 56th parallel, 
at which the line leaves this channel. 2nd. To ascend the Staken, Takee, Chilcat 
the Alsekh rivers, and fix the points of intersection with boundary line. 3rd. To 
ascend the Yukon River, and to fix the intersection of that river and the Porcupine 
■with 141st meridian of W. L. which here forms the boundary line. 4th. To com- 
plete the office work, mapping the results, &c. 

For the completion of the above work two if not three years' field work will be 
required, with one year's office work in addition. 

The estimate for two years' field work will be as follows, being the same as for the 
first, second and tenth years of Captain Raymond's estimate: — 

1st year §213, 609 

2nd vear 205, 227 

3rd year 50, 000 

Total §468, 836 

Very respectfully, 

A. A. Hl'MPHREYS, 

Brig. Gen. and Chief of Engineers. 
The Honorable W. W. Belkxap, 

Secretary of War. 



Extract from t]u_Jvur)i<il of the Royal GeoqraplncaJ Society., Voliane 

39, p. m, 18G9. ' 

" Portland Inlet, through the center of which runs the boundar}' 
between the British and lately acquired territory of the L'nited States, 
has l)een surveyed, and found to extend 11 miles farther north than 
shown on the old charts. Several new anchorages have also l)een 
found and surveyed on the main route between Vancouver's Island 
and Fort Simpson, the northern boiuidary." 

[Note. — The foregoing extract appears at the end of the Appendix to IMajor D. R. 
Cameron's Report, Sessional Paper No. 125, 1878, p. 45, but is omitted in the repro- 
duction of the Report in the Appendix to the British Case. See Appendix, p. 182.] 



PAPERS RELATING TO THE BOUNDARY ON, AND THE 
NAVIGATION OF THE STIKINE RIVER. 

[Note. — Some of the following pajiers appear in the British Case, Appendix, Vol. I, 
being extracted from Canadian Sessional Paper, No. 125, Vol. XI, 1878. They are 
republished here, together with official papers of the Government of the United 
States, in order to furnish a consecutive history of commercial intercourse on the 
Stikine River from 1873 to 1878.] 

S!r E. Thornton to Mr. Dams. 

Washington, Sid July., 1873. 

Sir: I have the honor to inform j^ou that the Governor General of 
Canada has called my attention to a communication whi(;h he has 
received from the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia, relative 
to the navigation of the River Stikine. Its contents were founded 
upon a letter of the 0th May last from a Mr. William Moore, residing* 
at Fort Wrangel, in Alaska, in which he states that the United States 
Deputy Collector had informed him that he had been instructed by his 
Government that no foreign bottom should l)e alloAved to carry freight 
through American territory on the Stikine River. It is probable that 
these instructions, the date of which is not given, were anterior to the 
Treaty of May 8th, 1871. 

It appears, however, that the 26th article of that treaty, which pro- 
vides for the free navigation of the Rivers Yukon, Porcupine and 
Stikine, should have come into force on the exchange of the ratifica- 
tions of the treaty. 

I should, therefore, feel ol)liged if you would cause enquiries to be 
made as to the truth of Mr. ]\loore"s statement, in order that, if it ))e 
found necessary, instructions, in accordance with the above mentioned 
Treaty stipulation may be forwarded to the United States authorities 
in Alaska. 

I have, &c., E. Thornton. 

The Honorable J. C. Bancroft Davis, &c., &c., &c. 



J//'. Doius to Sir Kdioard Thornton. 

Department of State, 

Woshln<jton., 15 Sejit. 1873. 
The Right Honora])le Sir Edward Thornton K. C. B., etc. etc. etc. 
My dear Sir Edward: Referring to the conversation which took 
place between us a few days since in relation to the complaint of Mr. 

53 



54 THK HOUNDARY ON, AND 

Williuiu ^loore respectino- the luivii^atioii of the KiviT Stikine, 1 take 
pleasure in enclosing herewith a connnunieation of the l*2th instant 
upon the subject, from the Secretary of the Treasury. 
Very faithfully yours, 

J. C. B. Davis. 



[Enclosure.] 
Tlie Secretarij of the Treasurij to tJie Sfctrtonj of State. 

Treasury Department, 

WdnhuKjto)!, D. C, l^th September, 1S73. 

Sir: Referring to year letter of the 2nd ult., covering a copy of a note of the Brit- 
ish Minister relative to the navigation of the River Stikine, I have the honor to 
enclose herewith, for your information, a copy of a letter of this Department of the 
8th inst. , directing the Collector of the Port of Sitka, Alaska, to ascertain, without 
delay, the truth of 31r. Moore's complaint, and to transmit a copy of the instructions 
received at his port in relation to the navigation of the Stikine, with a copy of the 
instructions given to the Deputy Collector at Fort Wrangel on the subject. The 
Collector was directed also to report the j^ractice of the Deputy Collector, with the 
authority on which it is based. 

On receipt of the report in question, I shall have pleasure in transmitting you a 
copy. 

I have, &c., 

Wm. a. Richardson, Secretary. 

Hon. Hamilton Fish, &c., &c., &c. 



[Enclosure.] 

Mr. Will. A. Richdrdnoii to the Collector of Cinftoinn, Sitka, Alai^La. 

Treasury Department, 
Washington, D. C, 8th September, 1873. 
Sir: I have to inform you that Mr. Wm. ]\Ioore, residing at Fort Wrangle, Alaska, 
has addressed a complaint to the British Minister here, in which he states that the 
United States Deputy Collector had informed him that he had l)een instructed by 
his Government that no foreign bottom should be allowed to carry freight through 
American territory on the Stikine River. 

As the 20th article of the Treaty of Washington of May Sth, 1871, provides for the 
free navigation of the River Stikine, I have to request you to ascertain, without delay, 
the truth of Mr. Moore's statement, and to transmit a copy of the instruction received 
at your port in relation to the navigation of the Stikine, with a copy of the instruc- 
tion given to the Deputy Collector at Fort Wrangle on the sul)ject, and state the 
practice of the Deputy Collector, with the authority on which it is based. 
Very respectfully, 

W.M. A. Richardson, 

Secretary. 
Collector of CusTo.Ats, Sitka, Ala-^ka. 



The Eaii of Duffer in to Sir E. Tltornton. 

No. 50. J Ottawa, JYovemher 2oth, 1873. 

Sir: With reference to 3'our despatch No. 34, October 1st, and to 
previous correspondence on the same subject, I have the honor to 
enclose, for your information, a copy of a letter from the Department 
of the Minister of Customs, forwarding an extract and copies of letters 



THE NAVIGATION OF THE STIKINE RIVER. 55 

received from the Collector of Customs at the Port of Victoria, B. C, 
having- reference to the navigation bv British vessels of the Stikine 
River, and to request that 3'ou will have the o-oodness to take such 
action in the matter as you may deem expedient. 
1 have. cVcc, 

DUFFERIN. 

The Right Honora])le Sir E. Thornton, K. C. B., &c., &c.. 6cc. 



[Enclosure.] 

The Adinfj Minister of Cwitoms to the Ear! of Dufferin. 

No. 1.] CcsTOMS Department, 

Ottavrt, 2m Xoremher, 1873. 

My Lord: I have the honor, in the absence of the Hon. the ^linister of Customs,. 
to enclose extract of a Report received from the Collector of Customs, at the Port of 
Victoria, British Columbia, having reference to the navigation, by British vessels, of 
the Stikine River, under the 26th article of the Ti-eaty of Washington of the 8th 
]\Iay, 1871, with a view to their transmission to the British Ambassador at Washing- 
ton, in order that the sul)ject referred to in 'Sir. Collector Hamley's Report may be 
brought under the consideration of the United States Secretary of State. I further 
beg to subjoin for Your Excellency's information, and that of Her Majesty's Ambas- 
sador at Washington, by way of confidential connnunication, copies in full of Mr. 
Hamley's letters of the 16th and 24th October, in which that public officer explains 
more fully to the Department the circumstances of this case, and the special interests 
affected i)y the restrictions still enforced by the American authorities in Alaska 
against the. navigation, by British vessels, of the Stikine River (and it is i)resumed 
also in regard to the Rivers Yukon and Porcupine), notwithstanding the provisions 
of Article 26 of the Treaty of Washington, herein above referred to. 

With resj)ect to IMr. Collector Hamley's reference to the consular certificate required 
to accompany goods destined for British territory beyond Fort Wrangel, by way of 
the Stikine River, and the bonds exacted by the Custom House Officer at Wrangel, 
that such goods shall not be landed in American territory; and stating that furs 
Ijrought down the river are treated in the same way — bonds and certificates being 
required with fees of office — these are matters of regulation which, though not 
unusual on the frontier of conterminous countries, might prol)ably, in view of the 
primitive condition of the country in question, be relaxed and confined to the report- 
ing and entry of the goods at the respective Custom Houses on either side of the 
national bomidary. 

I have, ike, D. Christie. 

For the Hon. Minister of Cnstntns. 

To His Excellency, The Right Honorable, The Earl of Dufferin, 

Governor General, dc, dc, dr. 



Sir Edward Thornton to 2Ir. Jtl.sJi. 

Washington, 1st Decemlcr^ 1S7S. 
Sir, I have the honor to refer to a note which I addressed to ]Mr, 
Bancroft Davis on the 31st of July last relative to tlie navigation of 
the Ri\('r Stikine, — one of those rivers in Alaska, the free navigation 
of which 1)V suhjects and citizens of the two nations was aurecd upon 
by the XXVI Article of the Treaty of Washington. On "the 15th of 
September Mr. Bancroft Davis was good eiiough to transmit to me 
copy of a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury — transmitting copy 
of a communication dated the Sth of that month to the Collector of 



56 THE BOUNDARY ON, AND 

Customs at Sitka, making inquiries as to the foundation of the com- 
phiint made that the free naxigation of the Kiver Stikine was not 
allowed to British subjects l)y the authorities of the United States. 

I shall feel nmch obliged if you will inform me whether anj- answer 
has been as yet received to that comnmnication. 

In the meantime however 1 have the honor to inclose copy of an 
extract from a letter of November Tth 180S from the Secretary of the 
Treasury to the Collector of Customs at Sitka, giving instructions that 
no foreign vessels should ])e allowed to proceed by way of the Stikine 
through United States Territory, to foreign ports beyond the boundary. 

1 also inclose copv of an extract from a letter addressed by the 
principal officer of Sitka to the Collector at Fort Wrangel dated Aug- 
ust 21st, 1873, from which it would appear that the authorities Avere 
at that time still acting under the order of 1873. I understand that 
orders had also been given that the prohibition was to be extended to 
canoes, and that only canoes belonging to Indians of United States 
Territory should ])e allowed to pass. 

The (lovernor General of Canada has further communicated to me 
that at present importers of goods from British Territory beyond Fort 
Wrangel by way of the Stikine River are required to declare their 
nature before the United States Consul at Victoria, British Columbia, 
getting a certificate from him to accompany their goods. The Custom 
House officer at Wrangel also requires bonds that such goods should 
not be landed in United States Territory. Furs brought down the 
river are treated in the same wa}^, bonds and certificates being 
required, with the consequent payment of fees. 

In the present condition of the Territor}" of Alaska these forms 
would appear almost unnecessary; for there could be no pretence 
whatever nor inducement to land goods on the short space of United 
States territory between the sea and British Territory, where there is 
no settlement and no one to receive goods. 

I venture to hope that under the cii'cumstances the United States 
Treasury Department may see fit to relieve British goods, for the 
present at least, from these obligations. 

But whatever may be its decision upon this point, I would suggest 
the expediency of its at once sending instructions that in accordance 
with the provisions of the 26th Article of the Treaty of Washington 
the free navigation l)v British vessels of the Rivers Yukon. Porcupine, 
and Stikine through United States territory is to be allowed. 

I have the honor to l>e with the highest consideration. Sir 
Your o])edient servant 

Edwd. Thornton. 

To the Honorable Hamilton Fish, Etc., etc., etc. 



[Enclosure.— Extract.] 

WAHHiyoTOi^, 7(h November 1S68. 
Foreign vessels have not the rijrlit tinder tlie law and should not be i>ermitted to 
proceed via the Stikine River thronsh American territory to foreign ports l)eyond 
the ))onndary of the T'nited States^. Snch vessels should lie requireil to enter and 
unload at your Port and must not unless previously authorized by the Dei)artment 
be allowed to pass further inland. 

J. McCvLLOCH, 

Secrelarji of the Treasur;/. 



THE NAVIGATION OF THE STIKINP] RIVKR. 57 

[Enclosure. — Extract.] 

The principal officer at Sitka to the CoUertor at Wrangel dated 21 August 1873. 

No atlvice ha^? been reeeivetl that foreign bottom.^ are a.s yet permitted to navitrate 
the Stikine River, and until instructions are received to the contrary tlie prohilntion 
still existsi. 

(teo. K. ^Ic Kxkjht. 



J/)'. FikJi to Sir Edward Thornton. 

Department of State, 
Wa-^hington, IS Dec. 1873. 
The Kight Honorable Sir Edward Thornton K. C. B., Etc. , etc. , etc. 
Sir: Referrino- to your note of the Ist in.stiint, in relation to the 
alleged interference with the rig-ht of navigation of the Stickine I'iver, 
.-secured by Article XXVI of the Treaty of Washington, 1 have now the 
honor to enclose herewith for your inforaiation, a copy of a letter of 
the 10th instant upon the sul)ject, from the Secretaiy of the Treasury. 
I have the honor to be with the highest consideration, Sir, 
Your obedient servant, 

Hamilton Fish. 



[Enclosure.] 

Tlie Sea-elary of the Treasury to the Secretary of State. 

Treasury Department, 
Washington, D. C, December 10th, 1873. 

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 8rd instant, 
referring to a communication from the Department of State of the 3rd August last, 
covering a copy of a note of the British Minister relative to the navigation of the 
Stikine River. 

You now enclose a copy of another note from the British ^Minister of the 1st 
instant, u])on the same sul)ject, and invite my attention to the alleged interference 
with the right of navigation of that river secured by Article 26 of the Treaty of Wash- 
ington, and you express the desire to know if any further information has been 
received l)y this Department since the date of my letter of the 12th September last, 
aildressed to the Department of State, which covered a copy of my letter of the 8th 
of that month to the Collector of Customs at Sitka, asking him to report the facts 
without delay for communication to the British Minister. 

I regret to inform you that no report from the Collector at Sika has been received. 
But on the ^>th instant, the Collector was advised that, under the circumstances of 
the case, and in compliance with the suggestions of the British Minister of the expe- 
diency of sending instructions, the Department was willing to give effect to Article 
26 of "the Treaty which, for the purposes of commerce, opens the navigation of the 
Yukon, Porcupine, and Stikine Rivers to British subjects under such laws and regu- 
lations as would govern in such cases. 

The Department desires that every facility should be given to British vessels 
engaged in this commerce. With this view the Collector was instructed to carry 
out, for the present, Article 1, jiage 10 of the Regulations the Department will shortly 
issue, governing the transportation of merchandise to, from, and through the Domin- 
ion of Canada, imder the Acts of June 29th, 1864, and July 28th, 1866, the Treaty of 
"Wasliington, and the Act of March 1st, 187o, for which purpose a copy was sent him. 

And the Collector was directed, with the further view of giving more specific 
instructions, to report the number and tonnage of British ves.sels employed upon the 
Stikine and other rivers mentioned; the cargoes they carry; and the final destina- 
tion of the goods; and to forward a copy of the regulations issued l)y the British 
authorities in regard to American vessels on the same rivers. 



68 THE BOUNDARY ON, AND 

And I may aild that the D(;'))artinent (•ontiMiiplates the issue of regulations, on the 
opening of navigation in Alaska, whi(;h will protect the interests of the Revenue, 
■while the stipulations of the Treaty will be duly observed. 
, 1 have, &.C., 

Wm. a. Richardson, St'crctari/. 
The Honoural)le Mamiltox Fish, ikc, &c., &c. 



j\Ii\ Fish to Sir Edimird Tliovnton. 

Department of State, 

^VasJli/i(Jto)}^ 3 'hmUj 187 Jf.. 
The Right Honoi-able Sir Edward Thornton, K. C. B. P^tc, etc., etc. 
Sir: Referring to previous correspondence upon the subject of the 
navigation bv British vessels, of the Stikine River, in the Territory of 
Alaska, 1 have the honor to inform you that it is stated in a letter of 
the '28d ultimo, from the Secretary of the Treasury that the Collector 
at Sitka, and the Deputy Collector at Wrangel Island have been 
instructed to act in accordance with the provisions of the Treat}' of 
Washington. 
I have the honor to be with the highest consideration, Sir, 
Your obedient servant, • 

Hamilton Fish. 



Tht Earl of Duffer In to the Earl of Khnherley. 

Ottawa, Fehruary ISth, 187)4,. 
My Lord: I have the honor to forward an approved report of a 
Committee of the Privy Council in respect to the navigation of the 
Stikine River in British Columbia, and containing the opinion of my 
Ministers in regard to the interpretation of the 2nd section of Article 
26 of the Treaty of Washington, as a question of principle is introduced 
in the interpretation of this clause. I have decided not to communicate 
with the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia until 1 should learn 
from Your Lordsiiip whether the opinion of my Ministers in regard 
to the clause meets with yoxxx approval. 
I have &c., 

Dufferin. 

The Right Honoralile The Earl of Kimberley, &c., &c., &c. 



[Enclosure.] 



CoT[)y of a Report of a Committee of the Honorahle tlie Privy Council, approved by His 
Excellency the Governor General in Council on the 11th February, 1874- 

On a Report dated 6th of February, 1S74, from the Honorable the ^Minister of 
Justice, stating that in the month of I\Iay, LS73, certain correspondence took place 
between the I.iieutenant Governor of British Columl)ia and the Secretary of State at 
Washington, in resjiect to the navigation of the Stikine River, in the Fnited States 
Territory, having been forbidden to British sul)jects, notwithstanding the 26th 
Article of the Treaty of Washington, and instructions appear to have been given by 
the Ignited States authorities tending to obviate the course which had been com- 
plained of. 



THE NAVIGATION OF THE STIKINE RIVEK. 59 

That furtlier application is now made by the despatcli of the Lieutenant Governor, 
No. 98, of the ISth Decenilier, IST'A, in whk-h he states that a (juestion lias arisen as to 
the proper interpretation of the2n(l clause of Article 26 of the Treaty of Washin^rton. 

That the point is really whether the ])rovision in question of the Treaty will be 
held to <rive to United States citizens the rights freely to navigate the river above 
the boundary through British territory in the United States vessels. 

That it api)ears that the rcci'ut discovery of gold fields on the npiter waters of the 
Stikinc River, now known as the Cassiar Diggings, may induce certain Americans as 
well as English to estal)lish lines of steamers to run from the sea to the head of navi- 
gation, and it depends upon the interi)retation jait ujwn this article of the treaty 
whether citizens of the United States will engage in that enterprise. 

The ^linister is of opinion that under tlie second section of the twenty-sixth 
article of the Treaty of Washington, the navigation of the River Stikine in its entire 
length is free and open for the ])urposes of commerce as well to the citizens of the 
United States as to the subjects of Her Britanic ]Majesty; sulyject, as to the iiortion 
thereof within the territory of either country, to such laws and regulations as are 
not inconsistent with the privilege of free navigation: and that citizens of the United 
States will, therefore, have the right of navigation in that river through Canadian 
territory, subject to all laws of Canada in resi)ect to navigation, cnstoins and other- 
wise as "shall not lie inconsistent with free navigation, as similarly British subjects 
have the same right in United States territory. 

The Committee concur in the report of the Minister of Justice, and advise that a 
Copy of this Minute be transmitted for the information of the Lieutenant Governor 
of British Columbia. 

Certified. 

W. A. HiMSWORTH, 

Clerk, Prirji ConnciL 



The Secretary of State for the Colonies to tJie Governor General. 

Downing Street, lJi.tJi March., 187 1/. 
My Lord: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of youi 
de;>patch of the 13th of February, enclosing a report of a Committee 
of the Dominion Privy Council in regard to the interpretation to be 
attached to the .second .•section of the twentv-sixth article of the Treaty 
of "Washington, relating to the navigation of the Stikine, Yukon and 
Porcupine Rivers. 

In reply. I have to inform 3'ou that Her Majesty's (Tovernment 
concur in the interpretation phiced upon the article by your Govern- 
ment, namely: — "That the navigation of the River Stikine in its entire 
length is free and open for the purposes of commerce as well to citi- 
zens of the United States as to the subjects of Her Britannic Majestj', 
subject, as to the portion thereof within the territory of either coun- 
try, to such laws and regulations as are not inconsistent with the 
privilege of free navigation". 
1 have, &c., 

Carnarvon. 
Governor General, The Right Hon. 

The Earl of JDufferin, K. P., K. C B., cScc, &c.. cScc 



2fr. Ftsli to Sir Edward Thornton. 

Department of State, 

Woshin(/ton, 2[ay 2nd., 187 Jf.. 
Sir: 1 have the honor to transmit herewith for your con.sideration, 
and that of the Government of the Dominion of Canada, a copy of a 
letter of the i^.Jth idtimo. from the Acting Secretary of the Treasur}^ 



60 THE BOUNDARY ON, AND 

and of its accompanying- report of the Collector of Customs at Sitka, 
Alaska, relating to the transit of foreign merchandise through the ter- 
ritory of Alaska cia Stikine River to British Columbia. 
I have, &c. , 

Hamilton Fish. 
The Right Honorable Sir Edward Thornton, 

K. C. B. &c., &c.., &c. 



[Enclosure.] 
Tlie Acting Sccrektrij of t}i.e Treasury to the Secretary of State. 

Treasury Department, 

Washington, April 25th, 1874- 

Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith copy of a Report from the Collector 
of Customs at Sitka, Alaska, dated the 2nd instant, with its enclosures, relative to 
the transit of foreign merchandize through the territory of Alaska via the Stikine 
River to British Columbia. 

It will be observed that the Collector of Customs at Victoria, B. C, has given 
notice to the effect that all foreign goods destined for the rivers at Dease Lake, B. C, 
via the Stikine River, must be entered with payment of duties, at some port in Brit- 
ish Columbia, the ports of Victoria and Esquimalt Ijeing particularly mentioned. 

The effect of such regulation will be to require goods shipped from ports of the 
United States to British Columbia, by the route proposed, to be turned aside from 
their usual route, and carried to some Canadian port in the south-western portion of 
British Columbia for payment of duties to the Canadian Government as preliminary 
to their shipment through the territory of the United States by way of the Stikine 
River, to their places of destination in British Columbia, on said river. 

It thus appears, that by this regulation certain onerous requirements are imposed 
upon the trade between the United States and British Columbia, via the Stikine 
River, from which the trade between British ports by the same route is exempt. 
Unless there may be some law or regulation affecting the domestic commerce 
between different places in the British possessions, re(|uiring British vessels to turn 
aside from their course to repoi't at Victoria or Esquimalt, or some other port in the 
A-icinity before making the passage of the Stikine River. Upon this latter point this 
Department has no information. 

In the absence of any such corresponding requirements affecting British commerce, 
the question may be raised whether the order issued by the Canadian Collector at 
Victoria, which, so far as it applies, established a condition precedent to the free 
navigation of said river for the purjioses of commerce, does not work a discrimina- 
ti(m against American commerce in contravention of the provisions of the Treaty of 
Wasliiugton thereby in practical effect depriving the United States of all the benetits 
supposed to have been acquired under the Treaty of Washington, as regards the free 
navigation of said river, for the purposes of commerce. 

It furtlier ajjpears, however, that the occasion for this order is, that no port on the 
Stikine River, or on the north coast of British Columbia, in connection with the 
Stikine River has yet been declared a port of entry by the Government at Ottawa. 

In view of the premises, I will thank you to communicate with the British Minis- 
ter relative to the subject-matter of this comnumication, inviting an expression of 
the views of the Government of the Dominion of Canada in relation thereto. 
I have the honor, &c., 

F. A. Sawyer, Acting Secretary. 

Hon. Hamilton Fisn, &c., &c., &c. 



[Enclosiirt'.] 



CrsTOM IIorsE, Sitka, Alaska, 

Collector's Office, April 2d, 1874. 
Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith enclosed printed notice of the Col- 
lector of Customs at Victoria, B. C, and copies of letters from the Honorable U._ S. 
Consul at Victoria, B. C, relating to the navigation of the Stikine River by British 
vessels, and the collection of duties, for your information. 



THE NAVIGATION OF THE STIKINE KIVER. 61 

The merchants (loin<r tmsiness here frequently make shipment" up the Stikine, 
(U'stint'il for the mines in I'ritish CoUimliia, and it will l)e a serious inconvenience 
to them to visit N'ictoria for the purpose. of makinir entry of their merchandize. 

I learn that it is tiie intention of masters of foreijrn vessels to clear direct from 
Victoria, B. C, for Buck's Bar, B. C, without makin<r entry at the Port of Wrangel. 
This is in direct conHit-t with Art. 1, p, 10 of the Kejrulations, itc., and in case it is 
permitted by our Government, foreign goods and liquors can he lamled with impun- 
ity on any of the small islands in American territory without i)aynient of iluties. 

The Department will bear in mind that the month of the Stikine is about H miles 
from Wrangel, and if foreign vessels are not required to enter at the Port of AVrangle, 
T would resi)ectfully reconunend that an Inspector be ajtpointeil and stationi-d at the 
mouth of the river with a boat and crew, for the purpose of intercei)ting and inspect- 
ing all foreign vessels, satisfying himself that their cargoes agree witii their manifests. 

I have instructed the Deputy at Wrangel to act upon his present instructions, and 
provided him with copy of Art. 1, Treaty of Washington, enclosed in your letter 
uniler date of Decendjer 9th, 187o. 
I am, (kc, 



Honorable W. A. Richardson, 

Secretarii (if Hw Tre'ixurif, Washington, D. C. 



WiLiE Ch.\pm.\x, Collector. 



Government Notice. 

The Collector of Customs thinks it right to give pul)lic notice that no ])ort on the 
Stikeen River, or on the north coast of British Columbia in connection with the Sti- 
keen River, has yet been declared a port of entry by the Government at Ottawa, and 
that under these cirt'umstances, and until orders to the contrary are issued by the 
Government, all foreign gO(jds intended for the mines at Dease Lake and its neigh- 
borhood must V)e entered, and duty on them collected at one of the existing ports of 
entry in British Columbia. 

livery facility will be given for passing such goods, as in other cases, at Victoria or 
Escpiimalt. On foreign goods already passed up the north coast an«l intended for 
these mines, duty will lie collected at the boundary post or at Buck's Bar, and on 
jniyment of duty they will l)e allowed to Ije taken for consum{)tion into British 
Columbia. 

W. H.^MLEY. 

Cr.sTOM HorsE, Victoria, MarcJi 14th. 1874. 



COXSUL.VTE OK THE UxiTEH STATES, 

Victoria, B. C, 16th March, 1S74. 
I have the honoi- herewith to enclose copy of a notice published in the Victoria 
pajiers, by authority of the Collector of this Port, respecting the entry and collection 
of duties on foreign merchandize iiitended for the new mines on tlie Stikeen River, 
British Columbia. 

The enforcement of this regulation must affect shippers of merchandize intended 
for these mines at your jxirt. You may therefore find this information important 
and necessarv to give it i)ublicitv for the benefit of merchants and 'other at Sitka, 
Alaska. ■ ' ■ 

I am, iScc, D. Eckstein, 

United States Consul. 
Hon. WiuE Chapman, 

Collector, Sitka, Ala.'<L-a. 



CoNSI'LATE of THE UNITED StATES, 

Victoria, B. C, Wth March, 1874. 

Dear Sir: I deem it my duty to acquaint you with certain facts connected with 
the ])resent and anticipated conununication and l)usiness between this port and 
Buck's Bar, B. C, '/'( Fort Wrangel and the Stikeen River in United States Territory. 

There are now being built here or fitted out thive small steamers intended carry- 
ing supplies from the mouth of the river beyoml the l)oundary. 

20G26— AP 5 



62 THE BOUNDAKY ON, AND 

The owners or })artie8 interested in them are under the impression that they can 
go with tliese steamers, with or without cargoes, from any port in this Province up 
tile ^tikeen Kiver througli our Territory to Britisli Cokimhia, without at anytime 
entering or clearing, calling or rejxirting either at Sitka or Fort Wrangel. 

They claim that by the late Treaty of Washington this privilege is i-onceded to 
them; I am myself altogether of a contrary oi>inion. 

You would oblige me very much V)}' informing me, by return mail, what are the 
laws or regulations in force which govern such cases at the present time, ami wliether 
our Government has adojjted any new regulations under which the subjects of (jreat 
Britain have the free use of said river for j)arp(>ses of conmierce and free navigation. 

As to late regulations adopted by the Custom House authorities here, and having 
reference to the importation of foreign merchandize intended for the mines at Dease 
Lake, I have to refer you to my letter of the IHth instant, and to the notice of the 
Collector at Victoria. 

I am, &c., ■ D. Eckstein, 

United StafcH Consul. 

W. Chapman, Esq., Collector, Sitka, Alaska. 



The Earl of Dtcffcrhi to Her Majesty s Charge (V Aff a! ris. 

No. 30.] Ottawa, 20th July, 187 1^. 

Sir: With reference to Sir E. Thornton's despatch, No. 15, of the 
5th of May last, I have the honor to enclose, for the information of 
the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, copy of a Report 
of Council, and a Report from the Customs Department on the subject 
of the collection of duties on goods entering British Cohnn))ia rla the 
Stikine River. 

I have, &c., Dufferin, 

R. G. Watson, Esq., 

Charge cV Affaires, WasJihigton. 



[Enclosure.] 



Copy of a Report of a Committee of the Honorable the Privy Council, approved by His 
Excellency the Governor General in Council on the 18th July, 1874- 

The C'ommittee of the Privy Council have had under consideration the despatch 
dated 5th ]May, 1874, and accompanying correspondence from Her 3Iajesty's Minister 
at Washington, having reference to a notice issued by the Collector of Customs at 
Victoria, B. C, whereby goods destined for Dease's Lake, via the Stikine River, are 
required to pay duties at Victoria or Esquimalt, and to the inconvenience to which 
American vessels would be thereby subjected. 

They have also laid before them the annexed Rei)ort, dateil 4th June, 1874, from 
the Hon. the Minister of Customs, to whom the above desjiatch and correspondence 
were referred, and they respectfully submit their concurrence in the said Report, and 
advise that it be communicated by Your Excellency to Sir Edward Thornton. 

Certified. 

W. A. HiMSWOKTH, 

Clerk, I'riry ('uuiic'd. 
[Enclosure.] 

Customs Department, Otiaua, 4fh .huie, 1874- 
The undersigned ^linister of Customs has the honor to submit for the considera- 
tion of His Excellency the (Tovernor tieneral in Council, the following memoranda 
on the subject of the accompanying corresi)ondence resjiecting navigation of the 
Stikine River, and the collection of the revenue in the adjacent territory, referred 
by His Lordship to the Hon. the Privy Council, and by that l)ody referred to the 
undersigned, and as the despatch of the Acting-Secretary of the Treasury, of 25th 



THE NAVIGATION OF THE STIKINE KIVEK. 63 

April Ia8t, addre^j^ed to the Hdii. Ilaniilton Fish, foiitaiiis a clear stateiiu'iit of the 
eubsitanee of the whole eorres^poiidenee, he bejijs leave to remark thereupon: — 

The Aeting-Seeretary of the Treasury say;?: "It will be observed that the Collector 
of Customs at Victoria, B. C, has given notice to the effect that all forei^jn goods 
destineil for the mines at Dease Lake, B. C, ria the Stikine River, must be entered 
for payiiii-nt of duties at some port in British C()luml)ia, the jinrts of Victoria and 
Ksi|uimalt being )>articularly mentioned," and remarks thereupon "that, the effect 
of such regulation will be to re([uire goods shipped from jMUts in the Cnitetl States 
to British Columbia, by the route jn-oposed, to l)e turned aside fiom their usual route 
and carried to some Canadian port in the south-western portion of British Cohnnl)ia, 
for payment of duties to the Canadian Covernment as preliminary to their shipment 
through the territory of the United States by way of the Stikine River, <kc., &c.," and 
from these premises the Acting-Secretary proceeds to argue that certain onerous 
re:|uirements are imposed upon tlie trade of the United States in connection with the 
trade on the Stikine River, which will not affect the domestic conunerce of the 
Dominion. 

To this the undersigned begs to reply that the notice of the Collector applies 
equally to all vessels, whether Canadian or foreign, sailing from any port other than 
those named, and was only intended to secure the due collection of tht^ Dominion 
revenue penchng the establishment of a port of entry at some convenient point on 
the Stikine River, and a perusal of the order of the Collector will l)e sntiicient to 
show that it ajiplies ecpially to British or Canadian vessels having dutiable goods on 
board for the territory named, as to those of the United States. 

The Acting-Secretary further raises the question, wliether this order of the Col- 
lector of Victoria, in its effects, "does not work a discrimination against American 
commerce in contravention of the provisions of the Treaty of Washington, thereby, 
in practical effect, de]iriving the United States of all the benefits supposed to have 
been accjnired under the Treaty of Washington as regards the free navigation of said 
river." It may be admitted that vessels plying between the Port of Wrangel and 
the upper waters of the Stikine River would be placed at a disadvantage if obliged 
to proceed first to Victoria or Escpiimalt, but the following extract of a letter from 
the Collector at Victoria, will show that means have already been taken to prevent 
the possibility of any such inconvenience. 

The collector writes under date, 22nd April, last. "By the steamer, yesterday, I 
sent .Mr. Hunter (who has been employed at Esquimalt) to Fort Wrangel, with 
directions to make the best of his way to the boundary as soon as the river is open 
and boats begin to run, which will probal)ly be in about a week or ten days after his 
arrival at Wrangel. 

" I have told him if people are willing to pay their duties at Wrangel, on goods 
inteniled for the mines, to collect thvm there, otherwise to take account of them as 
well as he may l)e able, and to collect the duties when the goods pass up the river." 

The undersigned has the lionor in ct»nclusion to state, that as soon as a report 
exjiected from the gentleman, sent to the boundary l)y the Collector of Victoria, 
jKiinting out the proper locality for a Customs establishment on the Stikine River, is 
received, a port of entry will be organized and all necessary facilities afforded for 
the purpose of conunerce in that region. 

Is.\AC BURPEK. 



J//'. ]]at.'<oN, C'/naye, to Mr. Fish. 

Newport, K. L, Jxhj 30, 187 Jf. 

Sir: In reply to your note addres.sed to Sir E. Thornton, of May 
2ncl last, I have the honour to tran.sniit to you, herewith, and to 
reciuest you to be so good as to forward to the Secretary of the Treas- 
ury, copicvs of a Report of the Council of Canada and of a Report from 
the Canadian Customs Department respectively on the subject of the 
Collection of Duties on goods entering British C'obimbia via th(> Stikine 
River, I am reciuested l)y the (lovernor General of Canada to com- 
municate these reports to the (iox'einmont of the United States. 

I have the honour to l)e, with the highest consideration. Sir, Your 
obedient servant. 

R. G. Watson. 

Hon. Hamilton Fisii. Etc., etc., etc. 



64 THE BOUNDARY ON, AND 

M)-. J'^isJi in _Mr. ir«:/As-o//. C'Jiai'C/c. 

Department of State, 

Was:/ihi(/fo)i, ISf/i Avfpist^ 187 Jf. 

Sir: KofcM-rino- to your coinimiiiicatioii of the 30tli ultimo, in rela- 
tion to the coniplaiiit which reached this Department through the Sec- 
retar}" of the Treasurer, and which formed the subject of my note of 
the 2nd May last, 1 have the honor to transmit a copy of a letter of 
the 12th instant from the Secretary of the Treasury, and of the peti- 
tion which accompanied it. from which it appears that the impediment 
to American .trade with British C'ohnuhia, l)y wayof theStikiiie River 
has not I)e(Mi removed by the location of a British customs officer at 
the ])oundary line ])etween the two countries on that river; as he 
requires that all uoods intended to Ite introduced within the British 
jurisdiction there shall first l)e cleared at Victoria. 

This Dc^partment was encouraged by the statements contained in 
the Report of the Customs Department, and approved in the Report 
of the Council of Canada, copy of which accompanied your note of 
the 30th ultimo, to believe that this state of things would end with the 
location of a British customs officer on the Stikine, who would be 
authorized to collect the duties on the spot without the inconvenient 
and ))urdensome conditions complained of: and it is hoped that steps 
may be taken which will secure that result at the earliest practical 
period. 

I have, &c. , 

Hamilton Fish. 

R. G. Watson, Esq., &c., &c., &c. 



[Enclosure.] 

The Trea><ury Department tn Mr. FisJi. 

Treasury Department, 
Wdsliingtoii, I), a, J 2th August, 1S74- 
Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith, for such action as you may deem 
proper, a petition from certain citizens of the United States, doing Inisiness at 
Wrangel, Alaska, in which they complain of the action of tlie Canadian otticer of the 
Customs, stationed on the Ijoundary line at Stikine River, in pieventing them from 
taking goods into British Territory, unless such goods haxe been previously cleared 
at the Port of Victoria, in British Columbia. 

I am, &:r., B. H. Bristow, 

Secretari/. 
The Hon. Hamilton Fish. <kc., <kv., &c. 



We tlie undersigned citizens of the United States, doing business at Fort Wrangel, 
Alaska, feeling ourselves aggrieved at the action of the Canadian authorities at the 
boundary line on the Stickine River, respectfully set forth the following facts: — 

Wrangell is located near the mouth of the al>ove named stream, and is the i)oint 
that all goods destined for the upper Stickine River are transshipped, and wliere the 
United States Government (to facilitate trade and accomodate persons of all nations, 
who might wish to navigate or do l)usiness on said river, eighty miles of which is in 
the Territory of Alaska,) have established a Custom House under the charge of a 
Deputy Collector, and have at all proper times cleared vessels and goods belonging 
to citizens of Canada and others. 

- On the other hand, the Dominion or Canadian Government has ]ilaced an Inspec- 
tor of Customs at the boundary line on said river, and actually refuse to i^ass any 



THE NAVIGATION OF THK STIKINE RIVKH. 65 

^(ioiIk unless they are first cU'art'il at the INirt of Victoria (a dit^tance of 700 iiiileH 
from tills point), and have seized and now keep in tlieir jtossession valnal)Ie and per- 
isliahle piods l)i'lonirin.<.' to merchants of this ])laee. tlie most valuable of wliicii were 
purchased prior to May 1st, 1S74, and before any order on tlie .subject of tiie Cus- 
toms were promuitiateii at the Port of Victoria. 

Tliese LM-ii'vauces liave been borne by us heretofore with f^reat patience, as we have 
l)een told from time to time that tliey would soon l)e remedied as soon as orders 
could come from the Canadian Ciovernment at Ottawa, Ac. The time has now 
arrived when we can no lon>rer keep<|uiet; ju.stice to our country and to our.-elves 
compel us to speak and respectfully ask of you, whom we conceive to be the proper 
person, to lay the matter bt'fore our (Jovernment. 
Kes])i'ctfully, 

William Kisr, 1,[-:.\k, Miffhitnt. 

Bex. Coles, Mirduuit. 

B. Bernstein, Mercli<tiit. 

G. P.WIDSOX, Mci'i-hdllt. 

L. H. Ol'imette, MtrclKiiit. 
Chakles Bhown, Mercliitiit. 
Sem. (ioLi)EzoN, Mcrrliaiit. 
Baknett W. Pvle, Mi'rrliditt. 
John C. Clrky, Mirrlmut. 
David ^Iartin, MrrcJtaul. 



J//'. Wntsdi, to ActiiKj Sirrdary of State. 

Washington, September "29., 187 J^.. 

Sir: I have l)eeii r('(|iiost(Hl \^\ His Execllencv the Earl of Diift'erin 
to forward for your information, copy of a minute of Coiiiu-ii, from 
which it will he perceived that instrm-tions have been oiven to the Col- 
lector of C'listoiii.s at tile lioiindary Line on the Stikiiie River, with the 
view of meetino- the comi)hunts preferred l)v American C'itizen.s respect- 
ino- the entrv of Foreion uoods at that place. 

In compliance with the Earl of Dufferin's reque.st. I have the honour 
to enclo?>e to yoti herewith copy of tlii.s report. 

I have the honour to be, with the highest consideration. Sir. your 
obedient servant. 

K. G. Watson. 

The Honorable John L. C'adwaeadek. etc.. etc.. etc. 



[Enclosure.] 

Cuy/// ((/■ (f Hi pod uf <i CoiniiiiUee of the Honorable the Prlnj (JouncU, ajt/imnij l,i/ 
Excelknct/ the (Governor General in Council on the ^2mi September, 1S74- 

On a connnunication from ^Ir. R. G. Watson, Her Majesty's Charire d'Affaires at 
Washinirton, with enclosures, referrinir to the (juestion of the collection of Canadian 
Customs duties at the lunuidary Hue on the ."^tikeen River, British Columbia; 

Tile Hon. tlie Minister of Customs, to whom this communication with i-nclosures 
has iK'eii referred, rejiorts that the dilticultie- complained of in the memorial of cer- 
tain citi/.t'us of the Cnited States, doin;r business at Fort \VraiiLrel no loii;,a.r exist, 
instructions having been sent on the 1st Auirust last by telejrrapli to the Collector of 
Customs at Victoria, l?ritish Columbia, to authorize the otticer of Customs stationed 
at the said boundary, to permit the importation of foreign goods and accept the 
Canadian Customs (Uities in tlie usual manner, and the said Collei'tor at Victoria has 
advised the Department that the instructions had been immediately forwarded as 
<lirected. 

The Committee advise that a copy of this minute be transmitted to Mr. Watson 
for the information of the Government of the Cnited States. 

Certified. 

W. A. Hl.MSWoKTII, 

Vlerk, I'rinj Council. 



66 THE BOUNDARY ON, AND 

Mr. nrl.stnir to Mr. Fi.sL 

Treasury D e pa RT>r ent, 

]V(isli!rujt(»i. ]). 6'., Stpt<:nih( r lo, 187 o. 
Hon. IIamii.ton Fish, Sccrdarn <>f Sfntr. 

Sir: I htive the honor to transmit herewith, for your information, a 
copy of eacii of two letters, dated the !^lst ultimo, received at this 
Department from the Collector of Customs at Sitlia. Alaska, in which 
that officer reports the surveying- l)y British authorities, of a site for a 
town })elieved to be located on territory belongino- to this country. 
I have the honor to be, Sir, your obedient servant, 

H. H. Bristow, Secretary. 



[Enclosure. 



Custom Hocse, Sitka, Alaska, 
Collector's Office, August 21, 1875. 
Hon. B. H. Bristow, 

Secretar}! of till' Treamry, WasJting'on, J>. C. 
Sir: It becomes my duty to inform you that citizens of Biitish Columbia have sur- 
veyed and laiil a town fiVe or six utiles down Ijelow Boundai-y post, at the place 
known as "Big Bend" — where the English Custom House is, on the Stickine River. 
They have applied to the board of Land and Works of British Columl)ia for a 
Charter and assignment of the land. The general belief is th:d the town is estal)- 
lished on American territory. 

The unexjiected and sudden development of the unexcelle<l richness of the Cassiar 
Mining (li^^trict, with the desire of the Hmlson Bay traders and other speculators to 
get near tide water is jiartially the cause of this infringement of the supposed Bound- 
ary line. Another reason I might add is the apjKirent indifference regarding the 
settlement of Boundary question between Alaska and British Columlna evinced by 
the last past Congress. 

I am, Sir, very respectfully. Your obt. serf., 

M. P. Berry, Collector. 



[Enclosure.] 

Custom House, Sitka, Alaska, 
Collector'.^ Office, August 21, 1875. 
Hon. B. H. Bristow, 

Secrelarg of the Tridsiiru, Waxlihtglaii, I). C. 

Sir: I have the honor to lay l)efore you the following rejKirt: — Took passage on the 
Mail Steamer July 14th for Port Wrangell remaining there until the 20th inst. — ]Met the 
Revenue Steamel < )liver Wolcott by appointment on the 15th of July and dispatched 
it on further cruise without delay. ' Assistant Inspector Dennis Avith his othce work, — 
went up the Stickine River to the British Custom Ht)use. During my interview with 
the Deputy Collector of Customs for Canada, — He gave it as his ojiinion that the new 
town — surVeyi'd at P>ig Bend on the River was in American territory. Met a Cho- 
quette, trader, known as /.'»r/,-, of Ihirkx Bar, — stated that he was with Engineer 
Leach when he estal)lished the line for the Russian and Hudson Bay Comjiany: — 
that the thirty miles was at or near the Hot Springs, opposite the great Glacier— that 
the English (-ustom House was in Alaska. 

Had an interview with Judge Sullivan — the Cold Commissioner for Cassiar, who, 
providetl I understood him — had been called to view and declare the town site eligi- 
ble, or not. Tol<l him that according to Wright's map — they were establishing a 
town in American territory. He held a diffi'rent ojiinion and encjuircd if 1 was 
authorized to stop the survey. — My reply was that no such authority was delegated 
to me l)v mv (lovcrnment, biit that I should rt^port the fact to the Hon. Secretary of 
the Treasury. Interviewed :Mr. Mcdvay,— Hudson tJay Factor, on the same sul)ject. 
He gave it as his oi)inion that the town was located some distance from the line on 
British territory. All interested American Merc^iants hold a rever.se opini^on. 

The ownerof the EiiLdish RiverSteamer "(iertrude" and "Glenora" will build two 



THE NAVIGATION OF THE STIKINK RIVER, 67 

new Steainors for tlu' Stickine river during the Winter, did propose to build at this 
port, hut there not being sutHeient mill facilities here, on my solieitation, after show- 
ing them the advantage that would accrue to them, financially and otherwise, they 
agreed to build them at one of the i)orts on I'uget Sound, — the fact of their building 
tiiem on the Sound, insures the distribution of Fifty thousaud or more Dollars among 
American mechanics. 
All of which is respectfully submitted. 

I am, Sir, very respectfuUv, Your obt. S:?rvant, 

M. P. Berry, Collector. 



TJie Secretary of State to the Secretary of the Trea><ury. 

Department of State, 

Washin(/ton. Sej.)te)iiher £o\ 1875. 
The Honorable Benjamin H. Bristow. 

Secretary of tlo: Ircasury. 

Sir: I have the honor to aoknowledo-e the receipt of your note of 
the 13th instant, transmitting a copy of each of two letters addressed 
your Department from the Collector of Customs at Sitka, in which 
that officer reports the surveying by British authorities of a site for a 
town. ))elieved to be located in territory belonging to the United 
States. I have conferred with Sir Edward Thornton, Her Britannic 
Majesty's Minister, who informs me that he has no information on the 
subject — but says that he will write to the authorities in Canada, call- 
ing attention thereto. 

He suggests what I entirely concur in. the importance of official 
surveys by the two Governments to establish, if not the entire line 
between our possessions in Alaska, and the British possessions, at 
least some important points on the Rivers traversing the l)oundary, 
and elsewhere, where, either from the supposed presence of minerals, 
or from other cause, there is likelihood that early settlements may be 
located. 

1 have the honor to ))e. Sir, your obedient servant, 

Hamilton Fish. 



The Earl of Carnari'ioi to the Earl of Daferin. 

Canada. — No. 251.] Downing Street, 22nd Octohtr, 1875. 

My Lord.^ — I have the honor to transmit to Your Lordship a copy of 
a despatch from Her ^Majesty's Minister at Washington. rei)orting a 
conversation with Mr. Fish respecting the settlement of some British 
subjects at a ])oint near the Stikine Kiver. alleged by American officers 
to be within the United States territory and l)el()w the British Custom 
House, Avhich is also stated to be within the United States boundaiy. 

In view of the circumstances represented l)y Mr. Fish, it appt^ars to 
Her ^Majesty's (iovernment desirable that an officer shoidd be sent by 
your Government or by the Provincial (iovernment of British Colum- 
l)ia. to ascertain whether the settlement alludi'd to and the British 
Custom House are within Bi'itish Territoi'v. 

I should be glad to l)e informed wlu>ther your Goverinnent are pre- 
pared to take this course, 

Ihave, &c,, Carnarvon. 

Governor General the Right Honorable 

The Earl of Dlfferin. K. P.. K. C. B.. &c.. &c., cVcc, 



68 THE BOUNDARY ON, AND 

[KiK'losure.] 
Sir E. T/ianitoii lu tlw Karl <>f Drrhif. 

Washington, ^^JOi Septemhrr, 1875. 

My Lord, — Duriny: an interview witli ]Mr. Fish, on the 2or(l instant, he read me a 
couple of letters which lia<l heen received from the United States Collector of Cus- 
toms at Sitka, in Alaska, in which the Collector states that a party of British snhjects 
had settled near the hank (if the River Stikine, at a point whicii they declared was 
within the territory of British Colnmhia. l)ut which American otheers on tiie spot 
l)elieved and asserted to be within the territory of the United States. The jKiint was 
stated to be below the British Custom House on the Stikine, which Custom House 
was also supposed to be within the United States territory, that is, within the ten 
marine leagues from the coast at which the boundary should be in accordance with 
the provisions of the 4th Article of the convention of February 28th, 182o, lietween 
Great Britain and Russia. 

The Collector's letter further stated that the British Deputy Collector on the Stick- 
ine had given his opinion tiiat the new settlement was within I'nited States territory, 
and it added tiuit the settlers were laying out the plan of a town, and that it was said 
that they had applied to the (Tovernment of British Columbia for titles to the land. 

Mr. Fish asked what I thought could be done to settle the que.-^tion of jurisdiction. 
I replieil that the occurrence went to prove the wisdom of the recommendation of 
Her Majesty's (ioverument that no time should be lost in laying down the boundary 
between the two territories. As it was, I could see no way of deciding the <|uestion 
except by sending officers, on behalf of each country, to take observations and 
determine on wdiose territory the new settlers had established themselves. I 
ol)served that when the question of laying down the Ijoundary was discus<e<l about 
two years ago, it was sugirested that if the whole .survey cmdd not l»e made, the 
points where the territories met could be fixed on the rivers which run through both 
of them. 

Mr. Fish replied that even for this partial survey he feared that it would be ditticult 
to obtain the necessary grant during the next session of Congress, l)ut he suggested 
that as the weight of evidence seemed at present to be in favor of the point in (jues- 
tion 1)eing in United Stales territory, the settlers should be called upon to suspend 
operations for the present and until the (luestion of territory could be decided. 

Upon this subject Her Majesty's Covernment will no doubt take such steps as it 
ujay deem expedient. During the winter nothing can l)e done l)y the settlers, but 
as it is suppo.«ed that they have been attracted to that country by the supjiosed 
existence of large quantities of silver and gold, it is not likely that they will refrain 
from visiting the ground as soon as the season will allow them to work. 
I have, Ac, 

Yj. Thokntox. 

The Right Honorable The E.\rl of Derby. 



Copy of a Rtport of a Commlttrc of tlm Jlonortihle f/tc Pfiri/ Council^ 
aj>jji'oi\'d hy Ills Krcellency the Governor General in. Coundl ok the 
2Srd Nortel nhrr^ lS7o. 

The Committee of Council have had under eon^ideratioii the despatch 
of the Rioht Hononil)le the Earl of Cariuirvoii to Ilis Excellency the 
(lovernor ( i(Mieral, transmittino-a cop}' of a despatch from Her Majesty's 
]\lini.ster at \\'ashiiioton on the suhject of a settlement lately mad(> by 
British subjects '"at a point near the Stikine Hiver. alleged l»y Amer- 
ican othcers to be within I'nited States t(U'ritory and below the British 
(Justom House, which is also stated to be within the Tnited States 
boiuulary/' 

In the disfu.ssion of this subject between Sir Edward Thornton and 
Mr. Fish, the latter sugo-ested, that as the weight of the evidence 
seemed at present to be in favor of the point in question being in United 
States territory, the settlers shoidd be called upon to suspend opera- 
tions for the present and until the question of territory could l)e 
decided. 



THE NAVIGATION OF THE STIKINE RIVP:R. 69 

In vi(Mv of the circiim.stances represented l»y Mr. Fish. Her Majesty's 
(iovernnuMit doeined it desirahlt^ that an orticcr shoidd he sent i)v the 
GovornnuMit of Canada or of liritish Columbia to asc(M'taiii whether 
the settU'inent alluded to. and the Hi'itish Custom House, are within 
British territory. 

From the terms of the Trt'aty detiniiii»- the International boundary 
between Alaska and the British ])ossessions, that portion of it extend- 
ing" from the o«;th deg-ree of north latitude to the point where it inter- 
sects the 141st degree of west longitude, follows the summits of the 
mountains whieh extend in a direction parallel to the coast, and, should 
these summits prove to be more than ten marine leagues from the 
ocean, the line shall then l)c parallel to the windings of the coast, and 
shall never exceed a distance of ten (1<>) marine leagues therefrom. 

The Stikine Kiver intt>rsects the inteiMiatioiial boundai'v. in tiie vicin- 
ity of the .■)Tth degree of north latitude, with so intrie;ite a l)asis for 
determining tlie true line, it appears to tlie Conunittee that a satisfac- 
tory solution of the ciuestion can only be arrived at by accurately 
defining the point where the boundary intersects the Stikine Kiver, 
and as sc^ttlements ar(> likely to increase along the banks of that river, 
it seems to he obviously in the intcnu^sts of both countries that the true 
line should be defined at this point without further delay. 

The necessity for marking the l:)oundarv in other localities is not 
immediately pressing, but it is undoul)tedly in the interests of both 
nations to encourage the settlement and developement of the country 
in the vicinity of the Stikine, and the cost «f ascertaining th(> point 
where the boundary intersects that river cannot be .so serious as to 
warrant its postpone ment to an indefinite period. 

The Conunittee would therefore recommend that the Cnited States 
Governnient Ijc invited to join with the British (government in fixing 
the l)oundarv at the single i)oint indicated, and that a copy of this 
minute, if api)roved by Your Excellency, be transmitted to the Right 
Honorable the Farl of Carnarvon, with the recjuest that should the 
suggestion herein contained meet with the approbation of Her Majesty's 
(Tovernment, the sut)ject may be again brought undtM-tht^ notice of the 
Cnited States Clov(M-iunent, with the hope that it may be faxourably 
entertained. 

Certified. W. A. Himsworth. 

C'/t/'/t\ Pi'n']l rniiiicil. 

TJk' Scrr<:t<ir>/ (if th< Ti\<i)<irri/ t<> thu CoUectoi' at Sithi. 

Treaslrv Department, 

W<(sIu„(/toh, D. 6'., Juhj U, 187 6. 
Sir: Your letter of the 15th instant " is received, in which you inform 
the departnuMit tliat one A. Choijuette. hIhis Buck, has established a 
trading-post within the limits of the Alaska purchase, and there fur- 
nishes goods to the Indians of Alaska, and is supposed, also, to sell 
them liciuors. This j)ost was first set up some two miles above the 
customs othce of the Canadian authorities; but you state that these 
authorities have removed their flag and office up the Stikine Kiver to 
a place known as (ilenora Landing, whieh is sui)posed to be Co miles 
above the boundary-line, and 'JO miles above their post of last year. 

" For letter .«ee jkM page 75. 



70 THE BOUNDARY ON, AND 

The position of Cluxiiu'ttc's tnidiiio-post. thereforo. tVills within the 
rocoiiiiizod limits of the Territory of Aiuskii, and you inquire wliether 
you shall notify Choquette of his ol)liuation to pay duties on his goods, 
if he remain where he is. or direct him to leave within a certain time, 
and make seizure of his goods if the removal is not etiected. 

You are advised to notify the trader to })ay duties on his goods, or 
to remove them within a detinite time without tlie Territory. As, 
according to your report, all his goods are a foreign importation, if 
the duties on them are not paid, or if the goods are not removed from 
the Territory within a reasonable time, it wnll be incumltent upon you 
to make seizure. 

Very respectfully. 

Lot M. Morrill, 
Secretary of the Tveanury. 
M. P. Berry, Esq.. 

Collector of Cu-stom.^^ Sitka. Ala-^l'a. 



The Collector at Sitka to Mr. A. Choquette. 

Custom House, Sitka, Alaska, 
Collector's Ojfice^ 19th Septemher., 1S76. 

Sir: In accordance with instructions received at this office from the 
Honorable Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, under date 
of July 14th, ISTO, it becomes my duty to notify you to remove all 
of the foreign goods, wares and merchandise in your possession and 
kept for sale and trade l)y you within the jurisdiction of the United 
States, beyond the limits of Alaska territory, or pay the legal duty on 
the same. 

I am further instructed bv DejDartment letter of date above referred 
to, that should you decline to remove such foreign goods, wares, and 
merchandise in your possession on receipt of this notice of removal, 
that 1 tix a time for such removal to Ije consummated, and that after 
the expiration of the time so tixed and s])ecitied, that 1 proceed to 
search foi- and make seizure of any and all such goods, wares and 
merchandise found in your possession, and remaining within the limits 
of the territory of Alaska, upon which the duties due the United 
States has not been paid. In consideration of the dithculties to be 
expected from the early closing of the navigation of the River Stikine, 
I shall tix the time for your removal to be completely made at two (2) 
weeks after the opening of the river, for canoe oi" steamboat naviga- 
tion in the spring of the year, A. D., 18TT; provided you decline to, 
and have not paid the duties as above referred to. 

M. P. Berry, 
Collector of Cudoiiis, District cf Ala -ska. 

Mr. A. Choquette, 

Mercland., Stikine River., Alaska Territory. 



j\L: A. Cho'juitte to JJr. Brodie. 

29th September, 1876. 
Sir: Herewith I enclose you a notice that has been sent to me, the 
other day, which I wish you to present to the (^olonial Secretary, and 



THE NAVKJATION OF THE STIKINE RIVKK. 71 

ulso iiiforii) him that I am paying" mylicciist^ and duties to the Govern- 
iiUMit, and that I look to tlieni for pnttectioii. as I am x'erv sm-e that I 
am at least ten (l(»)mih^s (>ast of the houndai'v, that is east of the hreak 
of the coast ranoH' whieii, according' to tlie old Treaty, makes me a 
h)no- way in British Columbia. 

It is not oidy my judouient nor my opinion, ))ut it is the opinion of 
every one man that has good judt;-ment ahout such. 

Mr. JNIcKay, i\Ieml)er of the Hudson l^ay Company, also Judge Sul- 
livan that got lost last sunuuer on the J\i(ific^ laid out a small town 
site, but it has remained that vcay ever since. It is ten (10) miles 
below me wlit>re he had laid out the town site, which i)i'oves that I am 
in British Colum))ia. 

Another thing that you will have to inform them of. is. that there 
never has ])een any survey done by either Government. Another 
thing you nnist also state to them, is, that in June, 1875, it was pub- 
licly made known to all, that when the Canadian Custom House was 
located, that it should be thel)oundary until l)otli Governments should 
have a general survey. 

Mr. McKay spoke to Judge Gray, and he said that he would see to 
it, but in case that he neglects, you must be sure and see that they do 
something about it, for if you do not, it will ruin my business, and 
probably be the loss of all my goods too; but. Sir. it is my belief — me 
and Mr. McKay — that they are trying to scare us otf. and if our Gov- 
ernment do not help, or have anything to say about it. that they may 
go ahead and try their hand anyway. 

Our Government can very easily have it put in the newspapers that 
anyone doing business on the Stikine River above the new boundary 
settled l)y the Customs in June, 1S75, that the said party or parties are 
not to l)e interfered Avith until the general survey is made, that will be 
satisfactory. 

It will put a stop to these little ofhcials of Alaska, for it is only them 
that has anything to say. 

Hoi)ing that you will do your best for me, and 1 leave it all for you 
to do, as I cannot go down to see about it now, and as 1 am not very 
well known with the officers at Victoria my intluence would not go far 
anyway, 

1 am. dear Sir, Yours very truly, 

A. Choquette, 



T/ir Colh'ctor (it Sitka to the Seo'etary of the Treaxv.nj. 

Custom House. Sitka, Alaska, 

O'Urctnr.s ({-ific, March 29, 1S77. 
Hon. Lot M, Moukiul, 

Secretary of tht^ Treasvry, Wa-shtiu/ton, I). C. 
Sir: I have the honor to report, that, having received official infor- 
mation from the American Consul, at Victoria. B, C, of date March 
24, IsTT to the etlect that the Canadian Govermnent has ordered a 
survey of the Stikine Kivei-. with tlu^ obj(»ct of d(>tei'mining the l)ound- 
ary line, with the i'e([uest that I should suspend enforcement of Depart- 
ment instructions, in r(>gard to the removal of or collection of duties 
from A. Choquette, until such time as it may be necessary to complete 



72 THE HOUNDARY ON, AND 

said survey In compliance therewith, I have notified the parties 
interested of the suspension of my orders, until the 1st day of August, 
1877, which will <i'ive, in my opinion, at least two months and one half, 
for such puri)os('. all of which is respectfully sulnuittcd and your 
approval re(| nested. 

J am. very respectfully. Your ()t»c't Scrv't 

M. P. Berry. Coll, dor. 



[Enclosure.] 
CopU It/ (■lij)i)iiii/ of '' D'lih/ Ilriti.<]i Colonid''^ Murcli 24 L'^77 . 

THE IXTERXATIdXAL BOUXUAKY. 

We understand Joseph Hnnter, Esij., (if tlie C'. P. K. S. Staff in this Province, has 
received instructions from Otawa to oriranize a party and proceed to the Stickeen 
River for the jmrjiose of makini^ a reconnoissance and survey, with a view to deter- 
mininji' the jioint at which the boundary line between Alaska and Canada intersects 
that river. We ])eiieve it is intended tliat the expedition shall sail by the steamer 
California on Tuesday next. Mr. Hunter is to be congratulated upon t>eing selected 
for this important work, as also are the puljlic upon this evidence of a desire on the 
part of the Dominion iJovernment to guard the interests and facilitate the operations 
of our miners and traders in that direction. The present step may be presumed to 
be only the preliminary of a complete adjustment and iiermanent establishment of 
the boundary line in question. 



The Stcrctary of the Trcosciy to tJo Collector at S'ltlui. 

Treasury Detartmext, 

Office of the Secretary, 

WmJihi</fo)u April 23. 1S77. 
M. P. Berry, Escj. 

Collector of Cxstoiits^ S'tLui, Ala><l'a. 
Sir: Your letter of the 'l\}t\\ idtimo, is received, reporting that, hav- 
ing received information from the American Consid at Victoria, B. C. 
of date March 24, 1877, to the eti'ect that the Canadian Government 
has ordered a survey of the Stikine Kiver, with the object of detcr- 
minining the boundary line between Alaska and British Columbia you 
have in conseciuence thereof, and of a request made l)v said Consul, 
suspended the enforcement of r)e])artinent instruction in regard to the 
removal of, or collection of duties u[)()n the goods of A. Cho(iuette, 
trader, until August 1, 1S77; and asking that your action t)e approved. 
Your action is hereby approved. 
Very respectfully, 

John Sherman, Sccrdarij, 



The Secretary of the Treasury to tJie Secretary of State. 

Treasury Department, June Wth. 1S76. 
Hon. Hamilton Fish, 

Secretary of State. 
Sir: 1 have the honor to enclose herewith, for such action as may 
be deemed proper, a copy of a letter of the 2nth March last, from the 



THE NAVIGATION OF THE STIKINE RIVER. 73 

Collector of ("usto!iiN at Sitka. Alaska, traiismittiiiii- a statcnu'iit of 
G('or<i-e Collins, fontirmod by A. J. Whitt'ord. a copy of which is also 
herewith enclosed, relative to the finish of Leach's Survey of the Sti- 
keene river or '' the ten marine leag-ues inland.'"' You will olrserve 
that in connection with the statement, the Collector .says, that the 
Canadian Custom House authorities will again move their flag down 
the rivei". 

1 have the honor to l)e. Sir, \-our obedient s(>rvant. 

1). II. BuisTOw. Secrrtary. 



[Enclosure.] 



Cl'stom HoisE, Sitka, Alaska. 
Colleetor's Ojjic^', March .'OOi, 1876. 
Hon. B. H. Bristow, 

Secretary of llie Treamr;/, WasJiington, D. C 
Sir: I have the honor to herewith, transmit foi- the information of the proper 
authoritiei?. statement of Georire Collins and eontirmatory statement of A. J. Whit- 
ford, regardintr the finish of Leach's survey of the Stickine river on "the ten marine 
league inland". It becomes my duty, in connection therewith, to state that the 
Canadian Custom House Authorities will again move their Flag down the River. 
According to Collins their station la.st year, — following the meanders of the Kiver, 
could not have been less than twenty-eight miles below the finishing point of the 
Leach survey, at the time that the information was furnished me that it was the 
intention to move their Collection Station further down the River, — the Office said 
"that the move was only one of convenience," that it had no political significance, 
or intent, or done to bring "their line to the coast"; all of which would be well 
enough if we <lid not know better. 

I am, Sir, very respectfullv, vour obt. servt., 

J\L P. Berrv, Collector. 



Statement of George Col/iii><, Aiiierican Citizen. 

Have been an occasional resident of the Stickeen river since 1862. About the 
time of the Alaska purcha,se, say 1S68, Professor Leach, formerly of the English Sap- 
pers i^ Miners, was employed l)y the Hudson Bay Company to survey thirty (30) 
miles inland, from the Coast on a salt water line — ^that the company nnght be able 
to build their trading jiost in British Columbia. I was with the surveyor — before 
going with him I had built for the H. B. Co. a house at the Big Ice Mountain — after 
the survey the sai<l house was abandoned and built another house for the company, 
about twenty-five (25) miles above the location of the first hou.'^e. 

Distance as given by the surveyor, thirty-one (31) miles from salt water, on air- 
line — sixty miles by the meanders of the river. A curious fact connected with the 
location of the end of the line is what jiersons speak of as the MoinnJ. During the 
year 1S()2, a miner died with the small \n>\ at Barry's bar on the river^was buried 
near by, the Profe.'^sor located the line — the point of ending directly on the grave, 
stating, that " one half the corpse was in P^nglish, the other half in Russian American 
territory." 

Choquette, alias Buck, was. also with the survey, and he knows he justifies facts, 
when he says, the thirty miles (30), only reached to Warm Springs Creek or there- 
abouts. 

GEORCiE Collins. 

Sitka, Alaska, Mare], .3il, 1S76. 



A. J. ]\'liilt'r>ril, Aiiieriran eillzen. 

The fact rehearsed l>y (Jeorge Collins about the miner dying at Barry's bar, on 
the Stickeen river, 1S(>2, is well known to ine. as I was on the bar at the time and I 
have often heard it stateil, that Professor Leach linished his survey, directly on 
the to)) of the grave, and that nearly the whole of Barry's bar was in the Alaska 
purchase. 

A. J. WlIITFORD. 

Sitka, Alaska, .Wirch -id, 1S7G. 



74 THE BOUNDARY ON, AND 

The Secretary of State to the Aethuj Secretary of thi^ Treasury. 

I)p:i'art:mext of State, 

Washlinjto,,^ Jntu 2Ji. 1876. 
The Hononit)le Charles F. Coxant, 

Acting Secretary <f thr Treasury. 

Sir: 1 have the honor to acknowhxloe the receipt of a letter, from 
the Secretary of the Treasury, bearing- date of the 2<»th day of June, 
instant, enclosino- a copy of a letter from the Collector at Sitka, Alaska, 
transmitting- a statement relative to the finish of a survey of the Sti- 
keene River, and callinjj;- my attention to the statement of the Collector 
that the Canadian Custom House authorities will a<>ain move their tiag- 
down the river. 

An examination of the letter of the Collector, and of the accom- 
panying- papers, fails to assure me of the precise intent of the British 
Custom House authorities, in this matter, at least so far as to convey 
any distinct statement, either that the British Custom House authori- 
ties are now^ occupying- a position within the Treaty limits, of Alaska, 
or that the position, which it is alleged that they are about to occupy, 
is within such limits. 

1 will thank you if you can furnish any definite information as to 
the precise location, with reference to the boundary line, between the 
United States Territory of Alaska, and the British Possessions in 
North America, of the occupation, either present or apprehended, of 
the British Custom House, or of their flag. 

I have the honor to be, Sir, your obedient servant, 

Hamiltox Fish. 



TJte Acting Secretary (f the Treasury to the Secretary (f State. 

Treasury Department, June ^7, 1876. 
Hon. Hamilton Fish, 

Secretary of State. 

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 
the 24th inst. relative to the finish of a survey of the Stikeen River, 
and a report on the alleged intention of the Canadian Custom House 
authorities to move again their flag down the river. And you ask to 
be furnished with deHnite information as to the precise location, with 
reference to the l)oundarv line between the LTnited States Territory of 
Alaska and the British Possessions in North America, of the occupa- 
tion, either present or apprehended, of the British Custom House or 
of their flag. 

A copy of 3^our letter will be sent to the Collector of Customs at 
Sitka, with instructions to obtain all information practicable on the 
subject and make report to the Dt^partment, on receipt of which a 
copy will ))e transmitted to the Department of State without delay. 
I have the honor to be, Sir, your obedient servant, 

C. F. CONAXT, 

Acting Secretary. 



THE NAVIGATION OF THE STIKINE RIVER. 75 

The Secretary oftlic Trcdsuri/ to the Stcntdry of SStnte. 

Treasury Department. Jiihj2oth^ 1876. 
Hon. Hamilton Fish, Secrdary of State. 

Sir: As connected, with the suljject of a coimnunication from this 
Department of the i^Tth ulto.. rehitive to a survey of the Stikine 
River in Alaska and the proper boundarv of the territory, 1 have the 
honor to transmit herewith, a copy of a letter to the Department by 
the Collector of Customs at Sitka, under date of the 15th ulto.. invit- 
ing your attention to that portion of the lett«M- which announces the 
location of the ottit-e of the Canaditui Customs authorities at Glenora 
Landino-. 

I liave the honor to he, Sir, your obedient servant, 

Lot ]\1. Morrill, Secretary. 



[Enclosure.] 



Custom Hocse, Sitka, Alaska, 
Collector's Office, June loth, 1876. 
Hon. B. H. Bristow, 

Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, I). C. 
Sir: I have the honor to inform you that the Canadian Customs Authorities have 
removed their Flag and office up the Stickine River — to a place known as (xlenora 
hmding the same being above the supposed boundary line some sixty miles and 
al)out ninety miles from and aVjove the post of last year. One A. Choquette, alias 
Buck, last year, settled and built a trading post, some two miles above the Customs 
post, — which is — undoubtedly in the Alaska purchase. 

The person referred to is believed to sell liciuor to Indians and is the source from 
which the Alaska Indians derive large supplies of foreign goods. 
He pays his Revenue to the Canadian Authorities. 

1st. Shall I notify Choquette that if he remains where he is located that he must 
pay rluties on his foreign invoices and be subject to the restrictions that other mer- 
chants in Alaska are subject to? 
2nd. Or shall I seize him without preliminaries? 

3rd. Or notify him, and give him a fixed time to remove his merchandise further 
inland, — then seize him at the expiration of the date? 

Having had conversation with him, I am under the impression, that nothing will 
be effected unless J am ordered to act decisively; — therefore would request that my 
orders on the subject be clear and positive. 

I am. Sir, very respectfullv, vour obt. servt., 

M. P. Berrv, Collector. 



The Secretary (f State to tJie Secretary of the Treai<ury. 

Department of State, 
Woslt'nuiton., Jiity 29, 1876. 
The Honorable Lot M, Morrill, 

Secretary if the Treasury. 
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 
the 25th instant, transmitting a c-ojiy of a letter to your Department, 
from the Collector of Customs at Sitka, under date of the 15th ultimo, 
and asking my attention to that portion of the letter, which announces 
the location of the othce of the Canadian Customs authorities, at 
Glenora Landino-, ^ 



76 THE BOUNDARY ON, AND 

I notice that the letter states, that "the Canadian Customs author- 
ities have removed their tiaii and ottice up tlie Stiekine River, to a 
phu-e known as (Jlenora Landing-, the same heinu- al)0\e the supposed 
boundary lin(\ some sixty miU^s,"' 

The Stiekine .River is understood to take its source in the British 
Possessions, and to tiow down, through the Alaska Possessions of the 
United States to the Ocean. 

If the information conveyed in the letter of the Collector be correct, 
it would appear, that the otfice of the Canadian Customs, has ])een 
moved up the river, i. e. in the direction away from our possessions, 
and that the place known as (flenora Landing-, is a))out sixty miles 
a])ove the supposed l)oundarv line. 

In this \ie\v, the location of the Customs office, is within the Britisli 
jurisdiction. 

I will thank you, in case your Department has any more definite 
information, as to the situation of the place, where the Customs office 
is said to be now placed, with reference to the boundary between the 
possessions of the United States and those of Great Britain, to place 
me in possession thereof — or of any trustworthy information respect- 
ing the Geography of the country, on or near the Stiekine River, or 
the boundar}- line. 

I have the honor to be. Sir, your obedient servant, 

Ha:milton Fish. 



Tlw Acting S<<-retar)j of the Tri((s)inj to the Secretary of State. 

Treasury Department, Sej)tem'ber 16^ 1876. 
Hon. Hamilton Fish, Secretary of State. 

Sir: Referring to the letter of the Department addressed to you, 
under date of July 25, 1876, relative to a survey of the Stikene river in 
Alaska and the proper Iwundary of the Territory, and to your letter to 
the Department of the 2-tth June last, asking to be furnished with defi- 
nite information as to the precise location, with a view to the ])oundary- 
line between the United States TerritoiT of Alaska and the British 
Possessions in North America, of the occupation, either present or 
apprehended, of the British Custom House or of their Flag, 1 have the 
honor to enclose herewith, a copy of a further report upon the subject 
from the Collector of Customs at Sitka, dated the 24th August last, 
transmitting Wright's Map of the Stikene River, with notes and 
explanations appended thereto, giving all the information known to 
him as to the boundar}' line between Alaska and the British territory. 

The Collector states that there are no white settlers at present 
between the Hudson Bay post and the mouth of the river, except the 
trader Cluxjuette. Nevertheless, he says, post (7, as marked upon the 
map. is considered the line of the territory, because it is not known 
that the Government of the United States proposes to secure the actual 
ten leagues, either by proclamation, declaration or possession. 
I have the honor to be, Sir, your obedient servant, 

C. F. Coxant. Acting Secretary. 



thp: navi(4ati<)N of the stikink ki\er. 77 

[Enclosure.] 

The Collector at Sitl:it to the Secretary of the Treasury. 

Custom House, Sitka, Alaska, 
Collector's Office, August 24, 18TH. 
Hon. Lot M. Morrill, 

Secretary of the Treasury, WaHhlnyton, D. C. 
Sir: In compliance with instructions of Department's letter, date June 2V>, 1876, 
requirinij: other and further information in reference to the boundary line between 
the rnited States, Territory of Alaska and the British pos.sessions, I have the honor 
to submit Wright's map of the Stikene river with such notes and ex[ilanations 
appended thereto as I am i-ognizant of. 

There are no white settlers that I know of at present between the Hudson Bay 
post marked B., and the mouth of the river, exceiitingthe trader Chotpiette. Never- 
theless, jtost r is considered the line of the territory, because it is not known that 
the < Government of the I'niteil States proposes to secure the actual ten leagues, either 
by proclamation, declaration or pos.session. > 

I am, Sir, very &c., etc., <fec., 

^I. P. Berrv, Collector. 



A. Parallel 57 — Long., 1.S2 \V., a1)out the end of the Leach survey. 

B. Hudson Bay post and Canadian Custom House 1874 — Known as the line 
l)etween Alaska and British Columbia. 

C. Custom House 1875. Gloved down in the spring of '75. 

C. C. Proposed removal spring of 1870 — point indicated by letters. Tf)wn site sur- 
veyed by British subjects. 

i). For reasons unknown, the Canadian Authorities evacuated C, and carried their 
flag up to Crlenora landing. 

E. A. Choquettes', alias Buck's, trading post, one mile above C. 1875. 

Distance from mouth of river to B., 1874 — by the channel and meanders of the 
stream — called by steaml)oat men and others ninety (90) miles. 

By ^^'right's River survey, submitted, twenty-seven (27) miles from mouth of 
river — following the meanders of the stream to Custom post — C, 1874. Distance 
direct from Coast line unknown. Surveyor Wright gives it as his opinion, that at 
the most that could be allowed, the distance was less than seventeen (17) miles, to 
C. 1874. 

Distance from coast to C. C, Town site fifteen or sixteen (15 or 16) miles. 



T/ie CoUector at Sitka to the Secretary of the Treasury. 

Custom House, Sitka, Alaska, 

Collector's Office, Octoher 12, 1876. 
Hon. Lot M. Morrill, 

Sccri'tdry of Trvastury, Washf'?if/ton, D. C. 
Sir: KofeiTino- to Cluis. F. Conant's letter of the 12th of August 
liL-^t, tran.--niittino- coniniunieation from the Hon. Secretary of State, 
and recjuesting additional information in regard to the location of 
the Canadian Custom House, on the Stikine Kiver, 1 have the honor 
to return the same herewith, with the information that under date of 
August 24 last I forwarded to you Wright's map of the Stikine Kiver, 
with full explanations of the location of the different points so far as 
my knowledge exists. I will add, however, that the Canadian authori- 
ties flid remove their Collection Ofliccupthe river to (llenora Landing, 
the same being some miles within their territory, nevertheless there 
is an English tlag placed upon the point where the Canadian otlicer 
was stationed last year — and that point as well as some miles further 
up and inland, I believe to l)e within the Alaska purchase. 
I am verv respectfullv, your obd't Servant 

M. P. Berry, 
Collector of Customs. 
2t)r.26— AP 6 



78 THE BOUNDARY ON, AND 

The Srcrctdri/ of War to the Seeretdry of State. 

War Department, 

WasJihigton City., May J^^ 1877. 

Sir.: I ha\"c the honor to transmit hei-ewith for your information 
copies of communications from Brioadier (Tcncral Howard. Command- 
ing I)c})artmpnt of Columbia, and Captain Jocelyn, lately in connnand 
of Fort ^^'rano•('l. Alaska, upon the necessity of marking the point 
where the boundary- line between the British and American possessions, 
crosses the Stickeen River. 

At tlie request of 3'our predecessor, an estimate was sul)mitted b}" 
the Engineer Bureau of this Department, on February 27th last, of 
$48,000 as the sum necessary to determine this point. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant 

Geo. W. jNIcCrary. 

To the Honora))le the Secretary of State. 

P. S.— 1 also enclose copy of a map of the location referred to. 



[Enclosure.] 



Headquarters Department of the Columbia, 

Portland, Oregon, January 15, 1S77. 
To Brigadier General O. 0. Howard, Commanding. 

Sir: Referring to tlie following extract from your Report on Alaska dated June 30, 
1875, — "I took our party up the Stickeen river as far as the l^oundai-y line between 
our territory and British Columbia. No building is yet erected for the Custom 
House. The place of the English Custom House Officers tents is supposed to be 
locatetl within the British line. Some of our shrewd frontiersmen say that it is not 
ten leagues from the sea as it should be, there being really dou))t as to the sunnnit of 
the Coast Range of Mountains. I took a copy of the statement of the boundary line 
as pul)lislied in an English Journal (see paper attached marked ''A"). It seems now 
to an observer of little consequence among these rough mountains where the exact 
line of division really is; but remembering the trouble the settlement of the Channel 
question gave us at Vancouver Island, I deem it of sufficient importance to recom- 
mend that the attention of the propei' Department be called to the existing doubt, 
not plainly settled by the treaty, that the line may be definitely fixed" — my own 
impressions of the evident encroachment of the English upon Aiiierican soil at the 
Stickeen river, received on a trip up that river August 18, 1875, led me into a corre- 
spondence with 3Ir. M. \\ Berry, tlie Collector of Customs at Sitka, Alaska, whom I 
then met, and to personal interviews with ]\Ir. Custavus A. ^Vrigllt, by profession a 
Civil Engineer, who has large business interests in Cassiar, and who during the min- 
ing season makes frequent trips, by the river, back and forth between Fort Wrangel 
and Cassiar. 

The.se gentlemen entertain views, in the premises, corresponding with my own. 

As no action is known to have been taken upon j'our report ((luoted), and because 
of the great inqxjrtance of now permanently settling what may become a vexed and 
serious international (juestion, I venture to suggest that you again call the attention 
of the War Department to this sul)je('t. 

The language of the Treaty with Russia is, "the said line shall ascend to the North 
along the channel called Portland cliannel, as far as the )>oinl of the continent vhere 
it .strikes the 56th degree of North Uititade; from this last mentioned point, the line 
of deniarkation shall folloir tJie .summit of the nionntain.'< .vtuated parallel to the Coaxt as far 
as the point of intersection of the 14M degree of West longitude, (of the same merid- 
ian ) * * * and, 2nd, That Avhenever the summit of the mountains which extend 
in a direction parallel to the Coast from the 56th degree of North latitude to tlie point 
of intersection of the 141st degree of West longitude shall jn-ove to lie at the distance 
of more than ten marine leagues from the ocean, the limit between tlie British posses- 
sions and the line of coast which is to belong to Russia as above mentioned (that is 
to say, tlie limit to the possessions ceded by this convention) shall be formed by a 



THE NAVIGATION OF THE STIKINK RIVER. 79 

line parallel to the icindhiff of the coast, and wliich xJiall never exceed tlu' dixtmice of ten 
marine leagues tlierefroni." 

A? a niattt-r of fact, tht're is no well defined range of mountains extending in direc- 
tion parallel to the coast. 

A rugged, l)roken region extends bai-k from salt water a considerable distance; the 
mountain peaks visible seeming to stand in groups or clusters; a confused mass of 
hills of varying altitudes "from three thousand to six thousand feet, the highest 
being, perhaps, in the vicinity of the point marked (Jrand t'anon, in latitude about 
57° 20' N." 

It would appear that the Russian Government had caused a monument to be set 
uji, on the Stickeen, marking a point ten marine leagues from the coast, and that 
this monument was, or is located someone lumdred and tliirty live (135) miles from 
the mouth of the river, in the vicinity of a point called Shakerville. 

I would suggest that the United iStates send an officer of Engineers to be joined if 
po.ssible, by some projier ofiicial on the part of Great Britain, early the coming 
.«eason to proceed from here North in .Tune, to define and i)ermanently mark a line 
ten marine leagues from salt water. 

I am, sir; very respectfully, your oljedient servant. 

H. Cl.vy ^VooD, 
Assislant Adjutant General. 



[Printed slip.] 
BRITISH COLr.MBI.\ — THE ALASK.VX LIXE. 

Victoria, Marcli 24- 
Josei)h Hunter, C. E., has been appointed by the Canadian Government to define 
the boundary line between British Columbia and Alaska. He will leave with his 
party on Tuesday. 

P. S. — Gexeral: The rough of the foregoing letter was prepared at its date. In 
view of the action taken by the Canadian Government, as indicated by the attached 
slip, the jiresent seems a favorable moment to submit it for your consideration. 
Very respectfully, 

H. Clay Wood, 
Assistant Adjxdant General. 



Headquarters, Fort Wraxc.el, Alaska. 

Octi>her M 1876. 
The Assi.xtaxt Ad.ittaxt Gexeral Depart.mext of the Columbia, 

Portland, Oregon. 

Sir: I have the honor to recommend that the attention of Congress, at its 
apitroaching session, l)e urgently invited to the necessity of instituting proper meas- 
ures for the early (letermination of the lioundary line between the United States 
Territory of Alaska and the Province of British Columbia. 

The recent development of important gold-bearing placer mines in northwestern 
British Columliia, which are only to l)e reached by way of the Stickeen Kiver, 
makes a knowledge of the boundary point on that river a question of no small sig- 
nificance, in the interests of commerce and trade. Gold is found on the Stickeen 
River at and al)ove Glenora, and on Dease, Thibert, ^IcDames, Trout and Quartz 
Creeks. Although the mines this far discovered are clearly without Ignited States 
territory the entire business of the mining region centers at Fort Wrangel. The 
severity of the winter in the interior brings the whole population to tlie coast with 
the close of the mining season in November, and sucli as do not remain at Fort 
Wrangel until spring pass through here en ronlf to (tther jioints. Not less than two 
thousand persons left Ft. Wrangel for the interior during the present season, all to 
return here with the ai)i)roach of winter. Four (three British and one Amerii-an) 
light draught river steamlxiats are employed in transporting freight and ))assengers 
from Wrangel t<.) Telegraph Creek, while five ocean steamers have, in 1.S7(), engaged 
in the trade with Fort Wrangel from Victoria and Portland. 

There is reasonable assurance for the belief that the mining interests of this section 
will develope a large and |)ermanent industry. 

The gold yield of Cassiar district for 1S75 exceeded one million dollars and for 
187() it is estimated at s;i,.")00,00(). Silver bearing Galena ore has been discovered in 



80 THE BOUNDARY ON, AND 

the ilistrict of a (]uality and in such quantity as, it is beheved, will warrant its l^eing 
mined and broufjiit to Wranu:el, thence Vj l)e forwarded for reduction in England. 
Thus it is seen that the Slickeen River has l^ecome a thoroughfare for an extensive 
goods and passenger commerce, passing, in its course for sixty miles, through terri- 
tory liable to be claimed by l)oth nations, and over which the authority and i>rotec- 
tion of law are now definitely extendecl by neither. Jllegitiniate trade naturally 
spring" up in this doubtful lielt, embarassing lawful enterprise ami capital in each 
direction, and greatly hindering a j)roj)er execution of the customs and Indian 
intercourse laws of the United States. 

Attention is resjiectfuUy invited to the map herewith enclosed, and to the provi- 
sions of the treaty between the United States and Russia proclaimed June 20, 18t)7. 
A line ten leagues from the ocean, running i)arallel to the windings of the coast, 
would cross the Stickeen River nearly at the point indicated. I have persojially 
examined the country near the river from its mouth to the head of steam navigation, 
and was im]iressed with the ditticulty that would arise in determining a continuous 
summit of the Coast mountains. There is no range or chain, but rather for the 
entire distance of over one hundred miles, and to the right and left as far as the eye 
can reach, a confused mass of mountain peaks with elevations from three thousand 
to six thousand feet, the highest being perhaps in vicinity of the point marked 
"Grand Canon" in latitude about 57° 2lK. 
I am. Sir, Your ol)edient servant 

S. P. JOCELYN, 

Capt. ild I)\f. t'oiiirnandliKj. 

[First endor.sument.] 

Headquarters op the Colu-mbia, 

I'ortlcnid, Oregon, March 29, 1877. 

Respectfully forwarded to the Assistant Adjutant General, Mil. Div. of the Pacific. 

I notice l)y the enclosed slip that the British Government has sent an Officer to 
examine this boundary line, and I call attention to the written report and recom- 
mendation. Would it not be well for our Government to look into this subject at 
this time. 

I invite attention to the accompanving papers, Letters from the Collector of Cus- 
toms, Sitka, Alaska, L5S4 DC 1875, 461 D. C. 1876, Extract from report of Captain 
Robert N. Scott, ;!rd Artillery, of Septend)er, 1867, and letter from the Commanding 
Officer, Fort Wrangel, with enclosures, dated October 1, 1876. 1830 DC 1876. 

I reconnnend that a competent Officer of the Army, P^ngineer Officer if practicable 
be detailed to survey the line, and permanently mark it according to existing treaty 
stipulations. 

If deemed practicable the British and American Officers might be associated in 
the work. 

Attention is particulaily invited to the enclosed tracing (1830 —— 1876). 

. DC 

O. O. Howard. 

Brigadier GeneraJ. Commanding. 

[Second enildi-si'inent.] 

Headqrs. IMil. Div. Pacific and Department of Cal'a., 

San Francisco, April 9, 1877. 
Respectfully forwarded to the Headquarters of the Army. I do not think the 
Department Commander overestimates tlie need of speedy action on the jiart of the 
United States in the matter of determining its boundary line between Alaska and 
British Xortli America. I ask the special attention of the General of the Army and 
War Department to this subject. 

These papers also show good cause for not al)andoiiing Fort Wrangel as a military 
post. 

Irwix McDowell 
Major (u'lieral, V. S. A. Commanding Dir. & Dept. 

[Third endorsenient.] 

Headijuarters of the Army, 

Washington, April 26, 1877. 
Respectfully submitted to the Hon. Secretary of War. 

It is usual for Congress to provide for the survey and demarkation of International 
boundaries bv a Connnission and survevors. 



THK NAVIGATION OK THE STIKINE RIVER, 81 

To survey the lK)un(larv between Alaska and British Columbia will be a diliirult 
and costly work, of too lar-re an extent to be performed by a single olHcer, out of 
the ordinary Army appropriation. 

W. T. SiiER.MAX, General. 
Offieial Copy. 

E. D. TowxsExn, Adjutant General. 
A. G. Offick, M(t)/ 3rd, 1S77. 



Pdliion of Amerieanclthtns to U. S. Treamry agent. 

(ti.knora, Stickeex River, July 6, 1S78. 

Sir: Inclosed please tind copy of instructions latelN^ received b}' 
]Mr. R. Hunter, de])iity collector of customs at Glenora, Stikine River, 
British Columbia, which, as you will see, places certain restrictions 
on Ignited States steamers ravig-ating- the Stikine River, which, up to 
the receipt of the enclosed instructions, have been alike free to ])oth 
nations. The steamer Beaver, an American steamer, although reall}' 
owned by British subjects, exercised all the rights of free navigation 
for the past two years. 

In addition to the instructions of which you have inclosed a copy. 
jNIr. Hunter, the deputy collector above named, has notitied us that 
we will not even be allowed to land freig-ht and again ))ring it forward 
from any point above a certain post about twenty miles from the mouth 
of the river, which they claim as th(> ))oundaiy line, but which is clearl}'^ 
10 or more miles below the real boiuidary line. An American steamer 
is thus fort)id by a Canadian ofticial, under penalty of seizure as soon 
as she arrives at the Canadian Custom-House, for landing freight on 
American soil and again bringing it forward to the Canadian port of 
entrv. In regard to the last named restrictions, the dej)uty collector, 
iVIr. Hunter, declined furnishing a cop}' of his instructions, but gave 
notice verbally in the presence of witnesses. 

The steamer Nellie, of Port Townsend, came to Wrangle in June 
last for the purpose of plying, for freight and passengers, between 
Fort Wrangle and Teleg'raph Creek, her owmers believing, and still 
believing, that they have the same rights as Canadian vessels. The 
restrictions placed on her by the Dominion authorities will virtuall}' 
drive her, as well as every other American vessel, from the Stikine 
River. 

In navigating the Stikine River vessels clear from Fort Wrangle for 
Glenora, where the Dominion custom-house is stationed, and where all 
duties on foreign goods are collected. Twelve miles abf)ve this point, 
at Telegraph Creek, is the head of navigation, where nearly all the 
goods that come up the Stikine River are landed and forwarded thence 
to theCassier ^Nlines by pack-trains. The river is ditlicult of naviga- 
tion from (ilenora up to Tch^gia])!! Creek, and again (|uite easy. 
When navigation was ditlicult, it has heretofore been customary to 
store freight at Glenora and forward by small lioats, or take it up by 
steamer when the river was more favoral)le, or to land part of the 
cargo so as to lighten the vessel, and after proceeding to a higher point 
and landing the cargo, returning to Glenora and reloading the freight 
that had l)een i)reviously landed, and again proceeding to the higher 
point. The Stikine is a river of strong current and somewhat difficult 
navigation, and unless all the ad\antages pertaini g to the navigation 
of such waters, siu-h as carrying heavy loads up the lower jiai't of the 



82 THE HOUNDARY ON, AND 

river, and whon the diffieiilt waters are reaehed unloadiiio- part and pro- 
ceedinu- with the remainder, repeatino- this liohtenino- in some eases 
for three or more trips, and then bringino- forward what had been so 
left, the right to navigate is of no value. The whole distance from 
Fort Wrangle to Glenora is about one hundred and fifty miles. 

You will please lay our grievance before our government at once, 
meantime taking such steps as you may deem proper to protect us in 
the enjoyment of our rights as citizens of the United States. 
Your obedient servants, 

-loHx C. Callbkeath, 
Ben. J. Stretch, 
Chas. H. Low, blaster, 
Owners of the steamer Well! e^ of Port Tov:risend^ Wash. Terr. 

Maj. W. G. Morris, 

United St at ex Revenue Dept. Port Toimsend, WasJi. Ttr. 
P. S. — No charge is made of an attempt to evade revenue or port 
regulations, or that the Dominion Government is wronged in any way. 
It is simply a move to drive American vessels from the river. 

J. C. C. 



[Enclosure.] 
Mr. Jnlimon to Mr. Hunter. 

Ottawa, Maij 18, 1878. 

Sir: In reply to your letter of the 25th in.stant, I beg to inform you that it is con- 
trary to the coasting regulations for the United States steamers or vessels to unload 
part of their cargo at the first Canadian custom station on the Stickine River, and 
after going higher up and landing the remainder to return again and reload what 
has been unladen and return therewith to the higher jioint. This course is not 
allowed to Canadian vessels in any similar circumstance in the United States. The 
steamer might properly take freight for the two points, and be allowed to land the 
(juantity consigned to each; but no foreign vessel has the right to reload freight once 
landed in Canadian territory for delivery anywhere else in the Dominion, and if 
that practice has really been allowed by the custom officials, it must l)e discontinued 
at once. 

The genera! question to the right to navigation by both nations is not open to 
question, but tliat right nmst always be exercised with due regaiil to customs laws 
and regulations. 

I have the honor to be, yours, etc., J. Johnson, 

Comiiiixsloner of i'u.^totii.''. 



Mr. Callhreath to [I. S. Treasury A(jent. 

Fort Wrangle, -/"/// lU 1S78. 
Dear Sir: I will take it as a personal favor if you will bring this 
n)atter to the notice of our government as .soon as possible, and if 
possible to get instructions so as to send by the next California. Of 
course this can only be done by using the telegraph. As soon as the 
water falls, the restrictions imposed upon us will drive everything but 
Canadian vcs.sels from this river. Of course this is the object of the 
Dominion authorities. I think our government might at least demand 
a suspension of the restrictions until the matter can be discussed, as 



THE NAVIGATK^N OV THE STIKINE RIVEK. 83 

the full and iinrcstrioted ri^ht hus been heretoforo enjoyed^ })y Ameri- 
can ves.sels coequal with Canadian. By attending to this you will 
place me under renewed obliiiations. 
Yours, truly, 

John C. Callbkeath. 
Major W. G, Mokris. 



If. S. TrtKisnry Agent to Amerlcun Petitioners. 

Office Special Agent of the Treasury, 

Portland, Oreg., Jxdy 2S, 1878. 

Sir: 1 am in receipt of your conmiunication, signed also b}- Benj. 
Stretch and Capt. Chas, H. Low, dated Glenora, July (!. 

I fully appreciate all the ditticulties under which you labor and the 
obstacles which are being- placed in your way by Canadian Customs 
officials in the prosecution of your business. I can see, however, no 
way to relieve you. The rule laid down by ]Mr. Johnston, the Cana- 
dian Connnissioner of customs is the law. The treaty of Washington 
guarantees to the subjects of Hev Britannic Majesty and to the citizens 
of the United States the free navigation of the Stikine River, "sub- 
ject to any laws and regulations of either country within its own terri- 
toiy not incoussistent with such privilege of free navigation." 

The Dominion Government has its own laws governing its coasting 
trade, and we cannot directly or indirectly violate them. ]Mr. John- 
ston is correct when he says the privilege you seek would not be 
accorded Canadian vessels b}' the United States. 

Our Customs regulations relating to the coasting trade are very 
rigid, and under no circumstances would a foreign bottom be permitted 
to engage in the trade you desire. 

The only wa\' out of the difficulty is for you to transfer the title of 
your boat to a British subject. This, however, should be done with 
caution, for should the Stikine trade die out, 3'ou would not be able to 
again procure Aiuerican papers for your boat without special act of 
Congress. 

The verbal instructions of Mr. Hunter in regard to the point on the 
river where freight must l)e laiuled involve quite a ditlerent propo- 
sition. 

The boundary line l)etween Alaska and British Columbia is the same 
as laid down in the convention of 1825 between Russian America and 
British North America. It is vague and undetermined, and will 
always remain in dispute until the respective governments settle the 
question by joint commission and survey. 

1 have devoted no little time and attention to this matter, and shall 
devote a large portion of my forthcoming report upon Alaska to its 
discussion, and endeavor to impress upon Congress the nei'essity of 
immediat*^ action. 

I presinne the point settled upon l)y Mr. Hunter is tiiat locatinl by 
]Mr. Hunter, the railway engineer, in his recent survey. The report 
of the latter has not yet reached me, but I learn casually he has run 
the line nuich farther down the river than has heretofore been sup- 
posed to be the boundary line. 



84 THE BOUNDARY ON, AND 

When the Dominion l*:ii'liaiuent was prorogued on the lOth of lSh\\ 
last, Lord Dutferin used the following lanouage: 

I am happy to be a1)le to ptate that, jieiidiufr the final settlement of the queptiou 
of boundary, a conventional line has been adopted l)y my "rove'-nment and the Gov- 
ernment of the United States between Alaska and British Columbia on the .Stikine 
River. 

Whether this is in accordance w^ith the Hunter survey I am unable 
to inform you, but will write to Washington for information, and when 
reply is received will duly notify you. 

As 3'ou have s])ecially asked me to lay your grievances before our 
government, I shall this day send your <-orrespondence and a cop\' of 
my reply direct to the Secretary of the Treasury. 

1 have given you my view of the case, and in the meantime would 
advise you to let matters remain in .^fati/ tjxo, until the department 
can be heard from. 

Your suggestion about using the telegraph is impracticable; the 
department would not act unless the whole case was properly presented, 
and this can only be done 1)V transmitting all the papers. 
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, 

Wm. Gouverneur Morris, 

Spt'cial Arjfiit. 
John C. Callbreath, Esq., 

Wran(/el^ Alasl'a. 



Governor of the Colonies A. E. Etliol'int to Coiitmandtf of Sttai/wt' 
Nieolai /, Yohmteer Pilot Lindenherg . 

[Translation.] 

July 23, 1840. No. 75. 

1 recommend you to sail from here on the steamer entrusted to you 
through Peril Strait to Icy Strait for trading purposes with the 
Kolosh, where you will cast anchor in a safe and con\enient place or 
at the point indicated to you by the Kolosh Ya-Khu-gan of the Icy 
Strait going back to his home with you and who volunteered to pilot 
you and to show you the place where u]:)on receiving information as to 
the arrival of the steamer all the lev Strait Kolosh will assemble for 
the purpose of trading with us. As far as I could imderstand from 
the words of that Kolosh the most convenient place is Port Frederic 
or Saviour Bay; at all events I wish \'ou to keep in view to trade with 
the Kolosh on the southern coast of Icj' Strait and not on the northern, 
which at present according to the agreement. l)elongs to the English 
and not to us. I ha\"e been informed that the Kolosh there have over 
(iO skins of sea otter which they want to sell to us and I instruct you 
tluM-efore to em})loy 7-S days for trading with them during which 
time I suppose it will l)e [)ossible to l)uy all their furs; should you not 
succeed in this I authorize 3X)u to sacrilic(> -J-H more days to this mat- 
ter in order to endeavor to purchase from them not only sea otter, but 
other remarkable furs that they may have. 

Upon having finished trading in the Icy Strait the steamer must sail 
along around the northern point of Admiralty Island (or Khuznoo 
Island) to the English settlement near the mouth of the river Taku 
(this settlement according to ^Ir. Duncan, C'ii[)tain of the Hudson's 



THE NAVIGATION OF THP: STIKINE RrVKR. 85 

Bay Coiiiptuiy'.s vessel Vaiieouver. is situated in latitude .^s 0'); l)ut 
as this route between the above mentioned Admiralty Island and the 
continent is very nai'row and ))ut little known, I reconnneiid you to 
find a convenient anchorini»- place in Barlowe Cove, which is at the 
extreme northern point of Hoolznoo Island and there sound the nar- 
rows of the channel as far as Stephen Strait, and then only shall you 
sail with your steamer to that strait. At Taku you will deliver to Mr. 
Douii'las. Chief of the En<>lish settlement the herewith enclosed letter 
from me to him, the ma]) of our survey of the Stikine Kiver mouth, 
and order to have delivered to him oU pairs of boots sent him from 
here on the steamer (which accoi'diiio- to accounts we are to pay them 
for lilankets brought on the Brig Chichagoii) as well as the 54 boards 
left here from Vancouver for delivery and which are loaded on board 
the steamer. Deliver also to Mr. Douglas the furs sent on with you 
from the Novo Archangelsk office, bought by us from the Chilkat 
Kolosh who were recently here, in exchange of which take from the 
English as many skins of river beavers or otters and in general all the 
furs they have had time to trade fi'om the Kolosh inhaljiting the 
islands situated within our possessions during their stay at Stikine and 
Taku. For greater convenience and clearness in the accounts, I found 
it necessary to propose to Mr. Douglas to proceed with the trade 
between the English and us by the piece, i. e. fur for fur of equal 
quality, the remaining quantity to be put down on the accounts 
between us, which I communicate to you for your guidance as well as 
that, according to an agreement luade by Mr. Douglas and myself, all 
skins of sea otters witliout exception, bought l)y the P^nglish from the 
Kolosh of these regions, will be didivered to us for the price they were 
purchased. 



Rt'port of Expedition to Camar District. 

[From •■Journals A; Sessional Tapt-rs. British Colinnbia, 1,S73-1".] 

TotJie Ilonorahle the Chief Coniinissioner (f Lanch (Did V^'orls^ British 

Cohiiuhia. 

Sir: From Fort ^\'rangle to the mouth of the Stickeen river the 
distance is about live miles; from the mouth of the river to the Big- 
Bend, distance al)out eighteen miles: and the average course east. 
From the Big Bend to the Great (ilacier seven miles— average course 
north by east. From the (ireat (ilacier to the Hudson's Bay Company's 
post, distance about thirty-eight miles; average course north by east; 
portion of this part of the river is a great deal cut l)y sloughs, snaggy 
and shallow in the fall of the year. From the Hudson's Bay Com- 
pany's post to Salmon Creek, six miles; average course west; also a 
portion of this part of the river is cut by sloughs, snaggy and shallow. 
From Salmon Creek to the Little Cafion, about sevent(^en miles; aver- 
age course north. From the Little Cafion to Klutchman's Canon to 
Clearwater Biver. about fourteen miles; average course north-east by 
north. From Clearwater River to Collins' Bar. eight miles; average 
course north bv east. From Collins' Bar to Shakesvillc, al)out seven 



8H BOUNDARY ON, AND NAVIGATION OF STIKINE RIVER. 

niilos; tlic averao-o course north-east by north. From Shakesville to 
Miller's Bar, about nine miles; average course north-east by north. 
Three and a half miles above Shakesville there is one riffle, not navi- 
gable for steamboats at low water; with hig-h Avater it is good; and 
with middling stage can go through the slough, leaving the riffle to 
your right. From Miller's Bar to Tidegraph Creek, foot of the Great 
Cailon, distance nine miles; average course north east. 

The ice leaves the river from the 24th April to the 5th or <ith of 
May. From tiiat time, suital)le river steamers can run the river until 
the tirst or middle of October; some seasons they may run later; from 
Collins' Bar to the first North Fork. 

Vegetaljles and good potatoes are raised to good advantage. From 
the Little Canon up, the snow falls light, from two to four feet. 
From the CaiTon down, snow lies after it has settled, from live to nine- 
teen feet deep in places on the river bottoms. On the Upper Stickeen, 
the spring opens eai'ly; the snow disappears in the latter part of March 
or the tirst of April. The weather, from the 1st of May, and through 
the sunmier months, is at times excessively warm. 

When my sons and 1 arrived at tlie foot of the Great Canon, on the 
22nd May, 1873, where we expected to get an Indian for a guide; after 
a day or two's delay, we started without a guide. As there were no 
Indians on the Stickeen at that time of the year we could gather very 
little information about the trail. The Trail follows the Stickine 
River for about twenty-five miles along a bench country, cut up by 
numerous deep gulches, including the first and second North Forks. 
At the second North Fork, we were detained two days and a half 
building a bridge; then the country is tolerably level and dry for 
twenty miles; then travelling through swamps for twelve or fourteen 
miles further, we came to a mountain which we were obliged to climb; 
we travelled on these mountains for about fifteen miles, and found our- 
selves getting into a slate range, which we followed for ten miles or 
more. This ridge of mountains runs about north and south. The 
w^aters of these mountains, as you will perceive by the map. run into 
the second and third North Forks of the Stickeen River. 

[Note. — Here follows a description of the remainder of the route to 
the Cassiar District.] 

On the 2-tth September, the weather turned cold, with a northeast 
wind, and continued so until the 2J)th; then it started to snow, with a 
north-east wind; all the miners leaving the creek. It continued <'old, 
and snowing heavy, until the 1st October; we then packed up and left. 
Found Mr. Rath and l)rother at the mouth of the creek, and travelled 
out together; weather very cold, and l)lowing a heavy north wind, 
with snow. On the 3rd Octo))er, it moderated. By this time the 
snow was from twenty to thirty inches deep; the same day it com- 
menced to rain. On the 7th we arrived at I^uck's Bar. 

Dease's Lake opens from the 15th to 25tli May. 
Yours respectfully, 

William Moore. 

VicTOiuA, iiiMTisii Columbia, JOf/t November, 187S. 



THE CASE OF PETER MARTIN. 

[Note. — The followino; note from the British charge in Wadiington to the Acting 
Secretary of State is printed to complete the correspondence as published in the 
Appendix to the British case, page 234.] 

Mr. Plunkett to Mr. Sevxrrd. 

Washington, September 25 ^ 1877. (Received September 26.) 
Sir: With reference to the note which Sir Edward Thornton 
addressed to Mr. Fish on the 11th of last Januar}^ I have the honor 
to inform you that I have just learned from the deputy governor of 
Canada that the Dominion Government has concluded the inquiry into 
the circumstances of the case, and has decided upon setting Peter 
Martin at li))erty without further delay. 
I have the honor, &c., 

F. R. Plunkett. 

87 



THE COAST SURVEY REPORTS SENT TO THE BRITISH 
GOVERNMENT IN 1883. 

The Ijrttish Minister to the Secretary of State. 

Washington, Novemher 5, 1883. 
Sir: Earl Granville has requested me to obtain if possible copies of 
the United States Coast Surve}' Reports for the years 1874, 1876, 1877, 
1878, and 1879, and I have the honour to ask 3'our good offices in this 
matter should you see tit to compl}- with His Lordship's request. 
I have the honoul* to be, with the highest consideration, Sir, 
Your obedient servant, 

L. S. Sackville West. 

The Honorable Frederick T. Frelinghuysen. 



The Seo'etary of State to the Brithh Minister. 

Department of State, 

Washington, Nov. 17, 1883. 
The Honorable L. S. Sackville West, etc., etc., etc. 

Sir: I have the honor to transmit to you, the Annual Reports of the 
Coast and Geodetic Survey, for the years 1874, 1875, 1876, 1877, 1878 
and 1879, which have been supplied through the Treasury for the pur- 
pose of meeting the request conveyed by your note of the 5th instant. 
I have the honor to be etc. 

Fred. T. Frelinghutsen. 

88 



REPORT OF A MILITARY RECONNAISSANCE IN ALASKA, MADE IN 
1883 BY LIEUTENANT FREDERICK SCHWATKA, U. S. ARMY. 

iPriiitcfl ill Semite Ex. Doc. 2, 4<Sth Congress, 2ncl .session, at page 20.] 

[Note. — The correspondence on this sitbject will be found in the Appendix to the 
British Ca.«e, pages 255-257] 

******* 

Camp 6, the first one on the waters of the Yukon River, was on a 
beautiful Alpine lake, over 10 miles long, and picturesque be3-ond 
description. Here the greater majority of the hired Indians were paid 
oti' between 7 and 9 p. m., many of them returning that night over the 
Kotusk Mountains to the head of the Dayay at "the stone houses," it 
being light enough at midnight, especially on the white snow, to see 
the trail perfectly. 

It might be of importance in a military sense to know if a Govern- 
ment pack-train of mules could pass over the trail from head of canoe 
navigation on the Dayay River, or even the mouth of that stream, to 
Lake Lindeman. As the trail now stands, or as we passed over it, I 
should say not; but believe one could be possibly found b}' a competent 
person inspecting this route for that particular purpose. As far as 
"the stone houses" a rough trail could be had V)y woodmen clearing- 
it at needed intervals. From "the stone houses" to Lake Lindeman 
the trail would depend more on the time of year than any other func- 
tion, it being ])etter in winter when the snow would be harder than the 
spring or summer, although in these seasons I do not look on a trail 
as impracticable, if a proper search be made with that object in view. 
The fact that the country l)eyond Perrier Pass, in the Kotusk Moun- 
tains, lies in British territory (as shown by our astronomical observa- 
tions and other geographical determinations when brought ))ack and 
worked out) les.^^ens the interest of this trail beyond the pass to the 
militarv authorities of our (xovernment. 



Appendix. 

He.\D(iuahters Dep.vrtmext of the Commbia, 
Vanronrer Barrnchs, Wnahington Territurij, April 7. lSS-3. 
Fir,«t Lieut. Fred. StiiwATKA, 

Third Cavalry, Aid-df-Camp: 
Sir: In view of the frequent reports of the dis^turliance of the peace between the 
whites and Indians in Alaska, and the indications that the present condition of affairs 
must lead to serious hostilities lietween the two elements in the near future, you are 
herel)y directed to proceed to that Territory for the puri)ose of gathering all infor- 
mation that can be ol)tained that would be valuable and important, especially to the 
militarv branch of the Ciovernment. 

89 



90 SCHWATKa's reconnaissance in 1883. 

You will ascertain as far as practicable the number, character, and disposition of 
all natives livin<j in that Territory, how subdivided into tribes or bands, the section 
of country tliey inhal)it, their relations to each other, and especially their disposition 
toward the Russian (Government in the past, and the feeling that exists amoiifi them 
towards the present Government and the white i)eople that are makini; their way 
into that Territory. 

You will further examine and ascertain their modes of life and means of communi- 
cation from one i)art of the country to the other, the amount and kind of weapons of 
war in their jiossession, and from where obtained. 

You will further o})tain such information as practicable of the character of the 
country anil the best means of using and sustaining a military force, if one should be 
needed in that Territory. 

You will make especial inquiry as to the kind and extent of the native grasses that 
would sustain animals ordinarily used in military operations, also the character of the 
climate, esj)ecially inland, the severity of the winters, and any other information 
that would V)e important to the military service. 

You will endeavor to imjiress the natives with the- friendly disposition of the Gov- 
ernment, and in no case will you move in any section of the country where you can- 
not go without ])rovoking hostilities or inciting the natives to resistance, as you are 
not authorized to exercise any control of affairs in that Territory. 

You will consider this dutj' especial and confidential, making your reports to me, 
accompanied as full as possible with itineraries, maps, traces, and field-notes. 

Asst. Surg. George F. Wilson, and four enlisted men, will be directed to report to 
you, and such Indian scouts as may be hereafter authorized. You are authorized 
to employ an interpreter when needed, and you will exercise strict economy in your 
necessary expenditures. 

In making your investigation you will endeavor to complete all information in 
each section of the country before proceeding to another, in order that, sliould time 
not permit your full completion of this work, it may be taken up the following 
season. 

The chiefs of the several staff departments at these headquarters will, on presenta- 
tion of this letter of instructions, furnish you with the means and necessary equip- 
ments to enaV)le you to accomplish the duty assigned to you. 

Upon completion of this duty you will return to these headquarters. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant. 

Nelson A. Miles, 
Brif/adier-fjeneral, Commanding. 



DIPLOMATIC COI{KESPONDE^X^E OF 1S8G. 

[Note. — In the Appendix to the British Case, pp. 248-255, tliere are published 
letters from Messrs. iiayard and Phelps, and one letter from Lord Iddesleijrh to Mr. 
Pheli)s, dated August 27, 1886, but the intervening correspondence between the two 
Gftvermnents does not appear. To supply that omission the following notes are 
rejiroduced. The correspondence was published in Senate Ex. Doc. 143, Forty- 
ninth Congress, first session.] 

Lord Salishury to Jfr. IVu/jj-s. 

Foreign Office, Jonaarij 20, 1S8(). 

Sik: I have the honor to acknowh'dge the receipt of your letter of 
the r.*th instant, forward i no- a .statement of the facts relating- to the 
l)oundarv between the British possessions in North America and the 
Territory of Alaska, as embodied in a dispatch which you have receiA'ed 
from your Government, accompanied by copies of the maps referred 
to in iVIr. Bayard's dispatch. 

In reply I have the honor to inform you that the proposal of the 
United States Government for the appointment of a joint commission 
for the purpose of arriving- at an understanding in regard to the 
})oundary line separating the territories in question will receive the 
immediate attention of Her ^Majesty's Government. 

I beg leave at the same time to acquaint you that I have instructed 
Her Majesty's minister at Washington to send home some copies of 
the work called "United States Pacific Coast Pilot,'' and I shall not 
fail on receiving them to return the volume which yoti have been so 
good as to forward to this department. 

In the meanwhile application will be made to the proper de})artment 
of Her Majesty's Government for copies of the British and Canadian 
official ma})s, referred to in the statement inclosed with your letter of 
the llHli instant, and I shall have much pleasure in supplying you 
with copies of the same as soon as I receive them. 
I have the honor to 1)e. (£:c., 

Salisbury. 



J//'. ILhjd.r to 2[r. Bai/dnL 

Briti:sh Legation, 

Wdfihington, March 12, 1886. 

Sir: W'itli reference to })revious correspondence on the subject of the 

Alaska Ijoundarv (juestion. I have the honor to inform you that I am 

authorized )>y his excellency the Manjuis of Lansdowne to state that 

he has connuunicated to Her ^Majesty's Goverimient the agreement of 

91 



92 DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE OF 1886. 

the Governinont of Cuiiiidii in pi-iiiciple to a preliminary survey of the 
Alaska bomulary bv a eoniniissioii. 

1 have the honor to be with the highest consideration, sir. your obe- 
dient servant, 

H. O. Helyak. 



Si/' L'loittJ Wc><t to JIi'. Bdytli'd. 

British Legation, 

WaKJiington^ Ajyril 3, 1886. 
Sir: AVith reference to the menioranduni which I had the honor to 
hand to you on the 19th ultimo, expressing the general agreement of 
the Dominion Government to a preliminary survey of the Alaska bound- 
ary, such as Avas suggested in the President's message to Congress, I 
have now the honor to inform you that Her Majest^'^s Government 
agree in principle to this preliminary investigation of the boundary, 
but that such agreement must not lie understood necessarily to imply 
the appointment of 'A, joint commission, 
1 have, cScc, 

L. S. Sackville West. 



J/y'. Bayard to IS'r Lionel West. 

Department of State, 
Washington^ Apr' il 8., 1886. 
Sir: With reference to previous correspondence concerning the 
Alaska boundary question, 1 have the honor to acknowledge the receipt 
of your note on the 8rd instant, in which you state that the proposed 
agreement must not be understood necessarily to implv the appoint- 
ment of a joint commission. 

I have the honor to be, with highest consideration, sir, your obedient 
servant, 

T. F. Bayard. 



Lo/-d Rosehe/'/';/ to J//'. Plielps. 

Foreign Office, April 15, 1886. 

Dkar AIk. Phelps: With reference to our conversation of the 12th 
instant, al)()ut the Alaska boundary, I find that the views of the Cana- 
dian Government on the proposal contained in your letter of the l!>th 
of January, which inclosed the purport of a dispatch from Mr. Bayard, 
were conununicated to the foreign office on the 31st ultimo. 

Sir L. West has, in consequence, been instructed to inform the Gov- 
ernment of the United States that Her Majest3'"S Government are pre- 
pared to take part in a preliininarn investigation of the boundary 
question. This would not connnit the two Governments to a joint 
connnission such as that suggested in your note of the 19th of January. 

Meanwhile, we do not propose to move further in the matter until 
we know what action is taken by the United States Government in 
regard to applj'ing to Congress for an appropriation. 
Believe me, sincerely, 

ROSEBERY. 



DII'LOMATIC COKRESFONDENCE OF ]88<). 93 

J/"/'. B<ill<ir<l to J//-. P/..:Jps. 

No. 280.] Depahtment of State, 

Wa.shuKjtoti, Api'il 26, 1886. 
Sir: With referoneo to previous correspondence on the su])ject of the 
Ahisku bounchirv question, 1 transmit to a'ou herewith, for the tiles of 
your leuiition, a copy of a nieniorancluni in reference to the matter which 
was left at this Department on the lUth ultimo t)y Sir Lionel West. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

T. F. Bayard. 



Akixkd boiDidari/. 



Mr. Phelps's proposal was for the appointment of a joint commission. 

The Dominion Government, however, while expressing its general agreement to a 
preliminary survey, has not expressed its assent to such a commission. They con- 
sider that a preliminary survey, such as was suggested in the I'resident's message to 
Congress, is preferable to a formally-constituted joint commission, which would 
involve a large expenditure of public money and lead perhaps to interminable 
discussions. 

We are of opinion that the survey which they are prepared to agree to would 
enable the two Governments to establish a satisfactory basis for the delimitation of 
the frontier and demonstrate whether the conditions of the convention of 1825 are 
applicable to the now more or less known features of the country. 

26626— AP 7 



THE DALL-DAAVSON DISCUSSION. 

[Note. — The following papers a^jpear in Senate Executive Document No. 146, 
Fiftieth Congref^s, second session, and are now pul)lisVied to complete the corre- 
spondence which was partially printed in the British Case, Appendix, Vol. I, pages 
257-263.] 

J/r. Ball to J//'. Bayard. 

Smithsonian Institution, 

Wa.s/ii)i(/fon, Fehruary IS., 1SS8. 

Sik: I have the honor to report that the sug'gested informal confer- 
ence between Dr. (xeoroe M. Dawson, of Ottawa, Canada, and the 
writer has been held. Dr. Dawson and myself conferred on several 
occasions (February 4-11) and discussed matters connected with the 
Alaska boundary question freely and informally. 

It was mutually announced and ag-reed that the meeting was entirely 
informal; that neither party had any delegated powers whatever, and 
that its object was simply the arrival at a consensus of opinion as to 
some reasonable and business-like wa}' of settling upon a line satisfac- 
tory to l)Oth countries, and the most practicable means of demarkating 
the line if one was accepted. It was thought that if Dr. Dawson and 
myself could unite in recommending some plan as practicable, that 
opinion or plan would be entitled to some consideration, from the fact 
that both of us are tolerably well acquainted with the nature of the 
country and its exploi'ation. 

In considering those points to which, in his opinion, Canadian inter- 
ests give prominence. Dr. Dawson referred to — 

(1) Fi-eedom of intercourse as between the channels and inlets of 
Alaska and the British territories of the interior, for Bri ish subjects 
and their vessels, boats, or other means of transportation, especially 
on the Stikine and Taku Rivers and the i)ortage at the head of Chil- 
koot Inlet. 

Also, for American citizens, between the latter point through Brit- 
ish territory to the Yukon River in Alaska, west of the one hundred 
and forty-tirst degree of west longitude from (xreenwich; since there 
is no doul)t that, l)y this route, intercourse with the Upper Yukon 
country is moi'c easy than ])y any other route. 

(2) This freedom of intercourse for Canada, Dr. Dawson thought, 
should include the nuitual concession of the right of river steamers 
Hying either flag to cut wood for fuel from the river l)anks of either 
territory, which by the letter of the law is now illegal even for Amer- 
ican citizens in Alaska Territory. It should include the right or con- 
cession of the right of navigating the .siilt-water channels and so 
called inland passages of the coast archipelagos and inlets in British 
Columbia and in Alaska, respectively, by the citizens of the United 
States and subjects of Great Britain. 

94 



DALL-DAWSON DISCUSSTOX. 95 

There is no doubt that the iiavioation of these coast and ten-itoi'ial 
waters niiii-ht l)e wholly or partly withheld by either power from the 
citizens and vessels of the other; thus niateriall}' curtailino- or render- 
ing- luio'atory the conc(>ded right to navitjate the navi<iable rivers which 
extend beyond the boundary into British territory, for (jreat Britain, 
and obliging- vessels of the United States, bound for ports in Alaska, 
to take the exposed '' outside passage" between the Straits of Fuca 
and the territorial waters of Alaska. 

(8) It would be desirable also that the transit of British miners from 
the coast over, for instance, the Chilkoot portage for the purpose of 
mining in British territory, wdiere the passage has to be made by land, 
should not ])e impedinl by the levying of customs duties on their outtit 
and ])rovisions by the United States at the coast, nor should a like 
impediment atiect American goods passing through British ter»'itory 
on the Upper Yukon in their transit from the coast to that part of 
the Yukon west of the one hundred and forty-first degree of west 
longitude from Greenwich, for use at American trading posts in Alaska 
Territory. 

(4) The right of Canadian sheriffs (or equivalent officers of the law) 
to bring alleged criminals from the British territory in the interior and 
hold them in custody through the coast strip belonging to the United 
States and in the territorial waters of Alaska, while in transit to Brit- 
ish Columbia for trial, is one which (under suitable regulations) might 
well })e conceded in the interest of morals and good government. 

To arrive at a state of affairs by which the above mutual concessions 
should be most easih' managed (and waiving temporarily a construction 
of the treaty by which General Cameron and others for Great Britain 
have contended that the heads of the inlets are already British terri- 
tory) Dr. Dawson is of the opinion that the best way is to so arrange a 
conventional boundary line as to include some concessions by the United 
States on the coast, and, if a (pi id pro (pio is thought necessary, he sug- 
gested a cession by (rreat Britain to the United States of part of the 
interior; as, for instance, the triangular region in British territory south 
and west from the Upper Yukon, and between it and the present Alas- 
kan boundar3^ 

From this I felt compelled to dissent, considering that the nuitual 
concessions desired might be reached by convention or treaty without 
cession of territory l)v either party, and that such an exchange as sug- 
gested, especially at the heads of inlets, would cut southeastern Alaska 
into two or three pieces, separated by lielts of British territory, with 
all the inconveniences, legal and sentimental, which that implies. Also, 
it is n)y opinion that no amount of the subarctic interior would form 
an eipiivalent to the United States for any part of the coast; and I 
gathered from Dr. Dawson that he also believed that no amount of the 
same sort of territory now held by us, north of the Yukon, would be 
accepted by Canada in exchange for any part of the coast of British 
Columbia south of north latitude 54- -40'. 

Dirterences have been alluded to, raised l)y General CauKM-on in a 
construction of the details of the Alaska treaty which relate to the 
boundary. These relate, not to those expressions in the treaty which 
have hitherto been considered as obscure, but to its most precisi^ and 
explicit wording. As, for instance, it would be claimed from his })oint 
of view that the name Portland Channel in the treat}' does not mean 



96 DALL-DAWSON DISCUSSION. 

Portland CliaiiiK'l. hut an entirely distinct series of waters; which con- 
struction would add to Canada an area somewhat laro-er than the State 
of Delaware. He would also reo;"ard the "line jHii'<illrl to tJw irlndi/u./s 
(sJni/'/s/'fes) (jj-' t/ie c(M/x/" as a line which should disreg-ard the wind- 
ings of the coast, and instead of fol lowing the "'crest (crctr) of the 
moiintninx^^ should skip across the arms of the sea when they are less 
than (5 miles Avide." 

A\'aiving these fundamental difierences in construction of the treat}', 
l)i'. Dawson suggested two alternative methods of obtaining a bound- 
ary line: 

(1) A line starting from certain specified fixed 'points on the natural 
routes l)etween the coast and interior, such as those to })e later referred 
to; the tei'ritory drained by streams debouching seaward of the tixed 
points to })elong to the Cnited States, and that drained by streams 
debouching on the opposite or inland side of the points to Great Brit- 
ain. It being, however, provided that in the event of the boundary 
line above determined reaching a certaiu specified distance from the 
coast, it shall then follow a straight line with a prescribed course for 
such distance as the seaward streams mav l)e found to lie on the British 
side of such line. A l)oundary thus formed would practically be found 
to follow the crest of mountain ranges for the greater part of its entire 
length, while it M'ould be prevented from attaining an inconvenient 
inland extension by the prescribed limiting lines. The courses of the 
latter might be stated with sufficient precision from our present 
knowledge of the region and should be in each case approximately 
parallel to the main trend of the oi)posite coast. 

The preceding paragraph, practically in Dr. Dawson's own language, 
agrees with the plan suggested in my memoi-andum of January 3, 
1888, except for the limiting proviso, a proviso which I would cor- 
dially accept. It would seem, therefore, that in essentials we practi- 
callv agree when the mode of getting at a line in this region is 
concerned. 

(2) Dr. Dawson's alternative proposition suggests that certain points 
on the natural routes cutting the coast mountains should be settled 
upon, and that straight lines should be drawn between these points, 
believing these straight lines would be little more difficult to surve}' 
than the water-shed determinations suggested in the previous para- 
graph. 

Jn either case the line as actuidly surveyed, marked, and accepted 
b}' the l)oundarv commissioners who might have it in charge should 
forever remain the legal boundary line, even though it pro\ed l)y 
more refined surveys at some later period to ])e slightlv at \'ariance 
with the theoretical line which it was intended to represent. 

As to the situation of the points where these lines should take their 
departure, it was agreed that this would depend upon the interpreta- 
tion to be placed on the treaty of 1825. 

But in regard to the Chilkoot portage wluM-e there is no naviga]>le 
rivei- and which is now the most imi)ortaiit inland route. Dr. Dawson 
seemed to feel that any plan not invohing the i)ossession of teri-itory 
through to the sea by Great Britain would be unacceptable; while I 

"The views of General Cameron are to be found in the accompanying copy of a 
letter to Sir Charles Tapper (printed above as Document Xo. 2), most courteously 
furnished me liy Dr. Dawson, in order that these views should lie dearly put on 
record. 



D ALL- DAWSON DISCUSSION. 97 

felt (Miuiilly contidciit tluit such ii cession is undesinihle for tiic I'nited 
States and would not be likely to be considered seriously by them. 

We both ajireed that the sooner the matter is settled and decided 
the l)etter for both coiuitries. The development and population of the 
region is pro<iressino- und ])rivate interests o'rowing- up. which, under 
some circumstances, miuht oi)erate to ol)struct the adoption of a fair 
and e<iuital)le settlement in th(» future. At present there an^ few such 
interests to l)e atfected. and an early settlement is doubly desiral>le. 
1 am. sir. \'erv respectfully, your olx'dient servant. 

Wm. II. Dall. 



J//' Dall to Mr. Bayard. 

Smithsonian Institution, 

Washington, Dcctinhi-r 19, 1S88. 

Dear Sir: I have the honor to submit herewith, as previoush' sug- 
gested, two documents relating- to the Alaska boundary question. The 
tirst is a memorandum, in which I have endeavored to trace without 
partisanship the historical i)rocess l)y which the Anglo- Russian treaty 
of 1S2.") came into being, and to explain the circumstances which may 
be su})])osed to have suggested the language used in the delimitory 
clauses, as well as the meaning that language was intended to convey. 

As the subject is full of ditticulties for any one who has not had the 
opportunity for special investigation into the circumstances, I lia\e felt 
that perhaps such a discussion might be of use to all parties concerned. 

With this document are sul)mitted the following maps, moi'c or less 
necessary for a cleai" uiulerstanding of the discussion: 

(1) Two tracings l)y the Coast Surve3\ showing' the features of the 
reg'ion on the north shore of Portland Inlet near its mouth. 

{•!) British Admiralty Chart. Xo. 2431. showing the latest British 
survey of Portland Iidet. 

If these papers an> to be printed it is very desirable that in the same 
collection should appear an othcially revised copy of the American- 
Russian treat}' or con\'ention concluded in 3824. 

A similar copy of the Anglo-Russian treaty of 1825; 

A similar copy, with both the English and French versions, of the 
Amei'ican-Russian treaty of 18ti7. by Avhich Alaska was i-eded to the 
I'nited States: 

A reproduction, from the atlas of the French edition of \'ancouvcr 
of 17i»!>. of so nuich of chart :-5 as covers the region north of {\\v tifty- 
fourth })arallel and that j)art of chart 7 which lies between the paral- 
lels of 'A and .37 degrees north latitude. 

If there are an}' additional geographical data forthcoming from the 
Coast Survey, during the last year or two, it would be desiratde to 
have them represented on a chart by themselves. 

The second document sul)mitted is a criticism in the light of the pre- 
vious memorandum of the singular hyi)othesis regarding the l)oun(larv 
line which ha\'e l)een emitted by ( iimeral Cameron of Canada, and which 
are foiinulated by Dr. Dawson in the accompanying lettei' to Sii- Charles 
Tupi)er. of which a copy was courteously furnished by him at the time 
of our informal conference, already reported on. 



98 DALL-DAWSON DISCUSSION. 

This i,s lu'compaiiicd by a copy of un oliiciul Canadian \uii\) on wliich 
General Cameron's hj'pothetical boundary line is depicted, which it 
would be Avell to reproduce as far as it relates to the Alaskan region. 
I liave the honor to be, very respectfully, yours, 

Wm. H. Dall. 



Memorandum on the AIaf<lan hoiaidary, hy W/7h'a//i 11. DaJI ^ A. 2f. 

1. It is admitted by all that the language of the treaty between Great 
Britain and Russia of February 16-2S, 1825, in so far as it attempts to 
define the boundary of the southeastern portion of Alaska Territory, 
then Kussian America, is, from the modern stand-point, insutticiently 
precise to render misunderstanding impossible. 

Leaying political or national preference aside, as far as possible, it is 
obyious that, to arriye at a true understanding of the intentions of the 
contracting parties to that treaty, it is necessary to consider the situa- 
tion and historical circumstances which led up to it. 

2. Hy reference to the publication entitled ''Papers relating to the 
Behi-ing Sea Fisheries, U. S. Department of State, Washington, 1887." 
it will be seen that Part ii is composed of documents relating to the 
boundary discussion coyering the period 1822-1838. A perusal of those 
documents will indicate to the fair-minded reader that in the eiirly 
part of the discussion between Great Britain, Russia, and the United 
States the yiews which were finally comi)romised in conyention and 
formed the basis of the discussion were that Spain (represented by the 
United States, which had succeeded to Spanish rights on the coast), 
the United States, Russia, and Great Britain had alike certain theo- 
retical rights due to priority of discoyery, trade with the nati\es, etc. ; 
out that the right of possession or soyereignty defacto^ though claiined 
by all, was concechHl by neither, so far as the coast between the Colum- 
bia Riyer and north hititude 55 degrees was concerned. 

The Russian claim, due to original discoyery, was by some ])ut at the 
parallel of 55 degrees north latitude, that being about the limit of the 
tirst discoyery of that coast by the Russian Capt. Alexis Chirikotf in 
1741. Others claimed that the true latitude by Chirikoft's discoyery 
was between the parallels of 48 and 49 degrees north, \yhence the claim 
of Russia was correspondingly extended southward. (See report to 
the Grand Duke Constantine of (.'apt. Lieut. Paul Nikolaieyich Go- 
loyin. on the Russian colonies in America, St. Petersbui'g. 18«) ; in 
Morskoi Sboi-nik, \'ol. Lyii. No. 1, iii, pp. 19-192. A short abstract of 
part of this report is to be found in Fortieth Congress, second session, 
II. R. Ex. Doc. 177, pp. 109-114, 1868.) 

This latter yiew was not established l)y the facts which could be ad- 
duced, and in the conyention between the United States and Russia 
April 5-17, 1824, it was yirtually abandoned. But. probal)ly because 
the paralKd of 55 degrees was not so situated as to afford a natural and 
recognizal>le delimitation in harmony with the physical features of the 
coast, an ai)i)r()ximation to it was adojited l»y which advantage was 
taken of a natural ()])ening in the arciiipehigo which fringes this coast. 
Tiiis opening, known as Dixon's Entrance, sepaiates the Queen Char- 
lotte Islands from the group noAV known as the Alexander Archipelago, 
by a broad strait almost free from impediments, the eastern end of which 
is prolonged into tiie most extensiye ijdet which penetrates the Ameri- 
can mainland in any part of the disputed region. If a person entirelj^ 



DALL-DAWSOX DISCUSSION. 99 

ioii()r:iMt of tlic discussion had hocii sIioavm \ ancouver's cliart of this ve- 
g'um and dirot-ted to select a line which should separate it into two por- 
tions in the niaiHier most in harmony with tlu^ physical characters of the 
land and water, he would unipuvstionahly ha\'e drawn a line which, do- 
partino- from the central channel of Portland Inlet, at its mouth, should 
be extended westward throu^'h Dixon's Entrance to the Pacific. If at 
the same time it was intended to g'ive to Russia only as much territory 
as would l)ring' her to the natural boundary, and no more, this line 
would be identical (on Vancouver's chart) with the parallel of Si de- 
grees and 4(» minutes Jiorth latitude, which grazes the southern head- 
lands of Prince of AVales Island and enters Portland Inlet practically 
in mid-channel. 

In this connection it nmst be borne in mind that Vancouver's charts 
were at that time, and remained practically uj) to 188»l. the only charts 
worthy of consideration, all others ])eing based upon them with but 
trifling- changes, and these not always for the better. It is certain as 
anything can be of which we have not documentary evidence that the 
maps used by the agents of the contracting parties were those of the 
French translation of the ofKcial edition of Vancouver's report and 
atlas. This translation was issued in the same form as the original, at 
Paris, in 179!*. There are others, but of later date and more or less 
al)i'idged or modified in the translation. French Ijeing the diplomatic 
language, the French rather than the original edition would have been 
used. 

3. It is also necessary to remember that at that period, and for many 
3'ears later, the region in question was regarded by all the civilized world 
as a horrid wilderness, peopled by l)lood thirsty savages, in itself value- 
less, and of importance only through its relation to the ainour jyi'oprc of 
the nations concerned and the daring voyages of a few adventurous fur 
traders. Considered as territory, a few miles more or less, in one direc- 
tion or the other, would have been regarded as of al)s()lutely no impor- 
tance by either nation. Such a view persisted long afterward in rela- 
tion to the far more attractive Oregon Territory, and is still widely 
prevalent in regard to southeastern Alaska. 

4. The convention of 182-1: acknowledged no rights of sovereignty. 
The Russians agreed not to attempt settlements south of the natural 
boun:lai'v above descril)ed (lat. 54- 40' N.), and the Americans agreed to 
make none north of that line. That the trading posts of either should 
not l)e visited by the trading vessels of the other except with the con- 
sent of the officer in couunand of the post, but that thc^ trade away from 
the ti-a«ling posts should be free to all (the sale of arms, amuumition, 
and li(|uor being prohibited) for ten years, after which the Russians 
might exclude the Americans from the waters north of the parallel 
mentioned. The convention was practically a moihis virimd/\ with 
delimitation of the areas in which sovereignty might accrue or even- 
tually be admitted, but without any definite admission of such sover- 
eignty iti set terms. 

5. The Anglo-Russian treaty of the following year started fi'om this 
basis and took a step in advance. In it the possessions of Russia were 
admitted to extend southward to the j)arall(d of 54 4(»', and her sov- 
ereignty over them was (>rtectively recognized. In territorial matters 
this was the oidy positive feature of the treaty. The difl'erenct's be- 
tween (rreat Britain and the Fnited States in regard to the territory 
south of 54 40' were not referred to, and the rights of (xreat Britain 



100 DALL-DAWS^ON Dlf^CUSSION. 

on that part of tlie coast were ivco^-iiized only inferontially, it at all; 
that is to say, while it was admitted that she had rights (a fact which 
indeed was g-eneralh' conceded), there was no attempt to state or define 
the territorial limits of those rights, except that they did not extend 
north of 54^ 40'. Thus Russia gained distinct recognition, hut Great 
Britain onl\' a ///odi/s vivcrtdi. 

6. The convention^ ahove referi'ed to wei'e negotiated wiiile George 
Canning was in charge of the British de])artmentof foreign affairs. We 
have th(> usual olHcial correspondence between the Russian and Amer- 
ican diplomats, and the explanatory dispatches of the latter, printed in 
the papers already alluded to, and in British and Foreign State papers 
(Vol. XIII, pp. 498-520), as well as the volumes of archives which 
have appeared under the auspices of the United States State Depart- 
ment. The unavoidable conclusion from a reading of these documents 
is, that the parties were, (1) chiefly concerned about a matter of princi- 
ple or national pride rather than the ac(iuisition of a little more or less 
of a territory regarded by all as practically worthless except for its fur 
trade: and (2) that in the delimitation of territory it was from the first 
and to the last a question of a parallel of latitude rather than of such 
a group of islands and such an area of the continent. Russia kne\v 
better than any one else the value of the fur trade on that coast, in the 
preservation of which the imperial family and many of the court were 
directly interested through the ownei'sliip of stock in the Russian 
American Company. 

She desired to exclude all foreigners from approaching the coast and 
attempted to ))ring this a))Out by the ukase of 1S21. The pretensions 
to control of the North Pacific assumed in this ukase were inadmissiV)le 
in international law and were the subject of inmiediate pi'otest by the 
maritime powers. Great Britain and the United States. As the citi- 
zens of the United States were the first to explore and to establish 
trade in many parts of the region, and a naval officer of Great Britain 
was the first to adequately chart the greater part of it, as both had 
traded with little molestation on the coast for more than thirty years, 
it was intolerable that such a question should be treated ])v ukase and 
settled by the edict of but one of the parties concerned. 

7. In the end Russia was ol)liged to recede wholly from the false 
position into which she had advanced, and the fur trade was for ten 
years thrown open in the Alexander Archipelago to all parties, and 
during that period practically destroyed, so far as sea-otters were con- 
cernecl. The only compensation which Russia received for this morti- 
fication was a recognition of her sovereign rights over the coast 
southward to 54^ 40'. This was really a great gain and probably 
worth more to her in the end than that ])art of the fur tnule which she 
lost. 

But in the state })apers which ha\e l>een pul)lished there is little or 
nothing ex[ilanatory of the minor details relating to the territorial 
delimitation, as finally agreed upon. It is certain that the form used 
was essentially the work of the Russian negotiators and expressed as 
closely as they thought necessary the boundaries necessary to secure 
to Russia the control of the trade and fisheries on the islands and 
shores of southeastern Alaska. The ^' line of 54- 40'" was then, as 
for many years, the central idea, and later l)ecame a campaign slogan 
in the United States when the northwest boundary was in question. 
The Russians wanted every inch of the coast to avoid the planting of 



DALL-I)AWS(>>J DISCUSSION. 101 

(.'oinpctitiNc tnuliiii:' posts in their midst. Hut tlicv were obliii-cd to 
yield to the British dciiiaud for free uas ioutioii of tiie ri\ers l>y which 
the traders of the Britisii intei'ior coimtrv could hriug their furs to 
the sea and carry their ooods to the interior. This privilege, how- 
ever, was never used. The settlement of a number of minor disputes 
later, by leasing" to the Hudson's Bay Compan}' the trading privileges 
of the Alexander Archipelago, put an end to a good many matters of 
controversy; and the practical extinction in this region, somewhat 
later, of the sea-otter, the object of aU this c()ntro\('isy, left no par- 
ticular occasion for further discussion. 

JS. There is. fortunately, one source of light on the St. Peterslnirg 
negotiations which helps us matei'ially to understand the motives and 
interests at work. This is the "" Political life of the Right Honorable 
George ('anning. from his acceptance of the seals of the Foreign 
Department in September, 1S2'2, to the period of his death in 18^7. 
By his private secretary, Augustus Granville Stapleton" (second 
edition. 3 vols. 8vo. London, Longmans & Co.. 1881). Both the 
writer and the subject of the memoir were in and of tlie things of 
which it ti'eats, and, apart from an official goxernmental record, no 
testimony could be more reliable and authentic. 

The part I'elating to these negotiations will be found in \o\. iii. pp. 
11-1-120. The quotations which follow are r<rhathii tt Jlicrainn. 

t>. After stating that the teri-itorial claims of the United States, and 
a supposed "' secret partiality for the Russian side of the question,'' 
rendered it undesirable for Great Britain to join with the United States 
in negotiations about this subject, and that Sir Charles Bagot, am- 
bassador to Russia, was instructed by Mr. Canning, then foreign secre- 
tary, to treat alone with the Imperial Government, the negotiations are 
thus described: 

The principal object of the negotiatimi was to obtain a recorded dit^avowal from 
Ku.ssia of the maritime pretensions advanced in the Uivaze [of Septeml)er, 1821]. 
And then (l)ut tliis was a secondary consideration) to settle some line of demarcation 
between the respective territories of the two countries, the settlement of which 
would furnish the Russian Government with a fitting opportunity for making the 
disavowal in (piestion. 

On the first point the Russian Ministers professed to entertain no difliculty; all 
therefore that it was necessary to do was to decide upon the mode of dividing the 
territory. For tiiis end it was agreed as the basis upon which the negotiations 
should be conducted, that the claims of strict right should be provisi(mally waived 
by both Parties, and that the adjustment should be made upon the sole principle of 
their mutual t-onvenience. That of Great Britain, on the one hand, required the 
posts on the Continent belonging to the Hudson's Bay Company, the embouchures of 
such rivers as afforded an outlet for the British trade into the Pacifick, and the two 
banks of the ^lackenzie River; on the other that of Russia induced Her to wish to 
secure to Herself Her Fisheries upon the islands and shores of the North West Coast 
and the posts which she might have alreadv established on them. ( O^^ifs <v7., pp. 
119-120.) 

Here it may be noted that at this time (ireat Britain, as represented 
1)3' the Hudson's Bay Company, had no posts on the Pacihc shore of the 
continent north of latitude ")! degrees north; and Russia, in the form 
of the Russian American Compiuiy, none soutli of latitude .■')7 degrees, 
in roimd numbers. The mean latitude between these parallels would 
be about 54 degrees north, -lo miles south of that finally adopted. 

lU. The first propositions of Great Britain were not accepted by 
Russia, and Sir Charles was ol)liged to appeal to his superiors for a 
more extended discretion. Shortly after the British ambassador had 
thussuspend(Ml his negotiations, the American minister. Mr. Middh^ton. 



102 DALL-DAWSON DISCUSSION. 

succcoded ill l)riiiuiii<i' those with which lie was cliarg'ed to a tcnuina- 
tioii. l)v tht> convention of A])ril 5-17, IS-J-i:. (See Treaties and Conven- 
tions l)etween the Tnited States and other powers, pp. 73;^>-7o4: or 
British and Foreion State Pai)ers, Vol. xii. pp. 595-599.) 

This convention essentially limited settlements by the citizens of 
either nation respectively to the north or to the south of the natural 
boundary line of 54 deju-rees 40 minutes north hititude, which we have 
alr(>ady described, and left the coast, apart from tradino- posts already 
established, open to navigation and trade with the natives for the 
period of ten years after the signing of the convention. 

11. Mr. Stapleton then continues: 

The boundaries desired ))y Husnia ))eyond what Sir Charles had been authorized to 
agree to, did not in any way materially affect the interests of this Country [(ireat 
Britain]. He was, therefore, instructed to consent, with some trifling niO(bficationsto 
the line of demarcation for which Russia contended. But in return for this concession 
on the part of Great Britain, certain points as to the navigation of Behring's Straits, 
and as to jirivileges of trading were to be stipulated for which had not been contem- 
l)lated in former discussions, but nevertheless were not considered to be of a 
nature at all unfavorable to Russian interests. Upon these points, however, the nego- 
tiation was broken off. AN'hether tlie comj)laints of the Russian Com])any against 
the convention with America ma<le the Plenipotentiaries more difficult to please, or 
whatever else might ))e the caus^ they remained inflexible; and Sir Charles Bagot, 
who was about to return to England, was allowed to quit St. Petersburg in the begin- 
ning of September, 182-t, without the conclusion of any definitive arrangements. 
This, however, was not a state of things with which Great Britain could remain con- 
tented. The indefinite ])ostponement of an adjustment of the territorial limits was 
a matter of little moment; but the settlement of the maritime portion of the question 
she could not submit much longer to defer. 

]\Ir. Stratfoid Canning was therefore sent shortly after Sir Charles Bagot's return, 
on a special mission to St. Petersburg for the purpose of bringing to a speedy con- 
clusion these long- protracted discussions. 

Mr. Stratford Canning was instructed to propose such alterations as were in accord- 
ance with those views of Russia, which were reasonable. If, however, tlie Russian 
plenipotentiaries should continue to be dissatisfied with the propositions of Great 
Britain, "Sir. Stratford Canning was to be at liberty to agree to an article stijiulating 
to negotiate hereafter respecting the territorial limits; but Mr. [(Teorge] ('anning 
considered it essential that Russia should in some way repeal "her unjustifialile arro- 
gation of exclusive juristliction over an ocean of unmeasured extent;" which, if the 
Russian Government would not do, then Great Britain would resort to some mode of 
recording in the face of the world Her protest against the pretensions of the Ukaze of 
182], and of effectually securing her own interests against the possibility of its future 
operations. 

For such j)rotest, however, there was fortunately no occasion. On the 2Sth of Feb- 
ruary, 1825, Mr. Stratford Canning signed with the Russian Plenipotentiares a con- 
vention of which the following is the outline: 

The first two Articles were in every respect similar to the first two, already de- 
scrilied as being in the convention between Russia and the United States*. Tiie third 
laid down the hue of demarcation, which was to commence from the southernmo.'it 
point of Prince of Wales' Island in 54° 4CK X. latitude, between the l.'Slst and 133rd 
degree of W. longitude, and to ascend to the north along Portland Channel, as far as 
the point of the Continent where it would strike the 56th degree of N. latitude; 
thence it was to follow the summit of the mountains situated jiarallel to the coast, 
as far as the jioint of intersection of the 141st degree of W. longitude and thence 
alfuig that meridian line was to be }irolonged to the Frozen Ocean. 

The 4th Article explained the third as giving the whole of Prince of Wales' Islaml 
to Russia; and when the summit of the mountains should exceed ten marine leagues 
from the cf)ast, then the boundary was to be formed l)y a line drawn parallel to the 
windings of the coast at the distance of ten marine leagues. 

The 5th Article l)Ound the two contrai'ting parties not to form establishments 
within the limits respectively assigned to the possessions of the other. 

The 6th gave to Great Britain the privilege of navigating freely all tlu' rivers and 
streams which in their course toward the Pacific might cross the strip of land on the 
coast assigned to Russia. 

The 7th mutually conceded the right of trading with the respective possessions of 
each other for a period of ten years. 



DALL-DAWSON DISCUSSION. 103 

The 8tli oiR'iU'd the port dl" 8itka to the roiimiei-ce and ve^i^elf^ of British Hul)jects 
for the same jjeriod, and provided that in ease an extension of the term he granted 
to any other power the same extension should he <rranted to (ireat Britain. 

Tlie four remaining.' articles reirulate some minor ]M)ints wliieh are not of sutKcient 
imiiortanee to bi' (U'tailed. l'>y this Convention (ireat Bi'itain secured for Ih-rself as 
far as Kussia was concerned all that was important for Her (commercial interests. 
(OjjKSciL, pp. 120-125.) 

The explanatory words in .brackets have been added by the writer 
to secure eh'arness. 

12. It t'ornis an interestino- conlirniation of the little weii;ht Itiid In- 
Great Britain on the matter of Icrritorial limitation in its nunor details 
to find, in the Life of the Kioht Hon. Stratford Canning by Col. Lane- 
Poole (London; Ijononmns, Creen & Co., 188.S, 2 vols., 8vo.), a work 
which, besides embalming greater things, fairly teems with the trifles 
of petty di})lomacy, only the following paragraph in regard to the nego- 
tiations alluded to: 

The ol)jeot of this instrument [the treaty of 1825] was a good deal more than a 
mere (juestion of boundary, thoufjjh the latter was made to cover and mask the larger 
desi<rn. A Russian ukase of 1821 had advanced claims to exclusive maritime rights 
hi the Pacific, and some public repudiation of this inadmissil)le jiretence had to be 
made on the jiart of England. This was to be accom])lished in a friendly and inno- 
cent manner by the first article of the new boundary treaty, in which our maritime 
and lishing lights in the Pacific were i.<4early maintaine<l. The article was det)ated 
by Nesselrode and Poletica, but the treaty was finally agreed to 28 February, with- 
out any material concessions on the side of England. (Opus cit., N'ol. i, p. 363.) 

13. These extracts show conclusively that so far from entering into 
a detailed study of the minutia? of the line suggested by Russia, the 
Britisli negotiators paid but little attention to it and its geographical 
relations, their desires and intentions hinging almost exclusixely on the 
repudiation of the principles involved in the ukase of 1821. 

14. It is also sufficiently evident from the above citations, as it is 
from every scrap of written evidence historically available, that Russia's 
object was to secure to herself the control of the "islands and shores" 
northward of latitude 54^ 40'. and. as the wording of the delimitor}' 
clauses ap})ears to have l)een that suggested by the Russian negotiators, 
that she siH)})osed that wording to be sufficiently precise^ for the pur- 
pose. Nor was she alone in this opinion, ^^'henever))y British author- 
ities any reference is made to this subject during the succeeding half 
century, the Russian position and construction of the treaty is not only 
iu)t opposed, it is taken as a matter of coui'se. One citation, among 
the many which might be made, to prove this, will suffice for present 
purposi^s. 

Sir George Simpson, governor of the Hudson Bay Territory and a 
director of the Hudson's Bay Comi)anv, an astute man of atiairs. and 
who focused in his own person all the interests whit-h might ])roHt by 
any insecurity of Russia in the generally receiv(>d construction of the 
Avording of the treaty, made in 1S41 a voyag(^ aroiuid the world, it is 
believed with diplomatic as well as other purposes in view. He visited 
southeastern Alaska, of which the fur trade was then under lease to 
the Hudson's Bay Company, and the coast of British Columbia, etc. He 
pul)lished in 1847 an account of his travels in two volumes. In the 
second volume (p. 209) we find the following observations: 

Russia, as the reader is of course aware, i>ossesses on the mainland between lati- 
tude 54° 40'' and latitude 00 degrees only a strip, never exceeding 'M miles in depth; 
and this strip, in the absence of such an arrangement as has just been mentioned 
[the aforesaid lease], renders the interior comparatively useless to England. 



104 DALL-DAWSON DISCUSSION. 

15. It does not, in the writer's opinion, require further arg-unient to 
enforee the conelusion that whatever construction Ije phiced on the 
wordino- of the treaty to conform to the historic evidence and prac- 
tical international usage of the U\o parties most interested, that 
construction nuist assume: 

(1) That the parallel of Al- 40' noi'th latitude was the dominating- 
factor. 

(2) That the coast and islands north of that parallel and excepting- 
the right of river navigation were wholly and entirely conceded to the 
sovereign tv of Russia. 

(3) That the geographical l)asis upon which iiotii parties rested their 
delimitating description was based on the charts of Vancouver, of 
which the edition used was prol)al)ly the French translation of 171>!>. 

16. We may now proceed, using the otlicially-revised copy of the 
treaty, to discuss the wording in those points in which it concerns the 
boundary. 

According to Vancouver's chart, as already herein stated, the south- 
ern headlands of the body of land called V)y him Prince of Wales 
Island were supposed to graze the parallel of 5-4^ 40'. Their position 
has not yet been officially determined within the limit of accuracy now 
possible to geodetic surveyors with the best instruments. As Van- 
couver's latitudes depended on the use of the sextant of those early 
days, there was an evident possibility that the position of the head- 
lands might finally prove to )ie a mile or two north or south of the 
accepted parallel. To avoid a wording by which Hussia (in the event 
of the headlands being shown to project south of that parallel) should 
be deprived of sovereignty over the few acres concerned, the proviso 
was made that the island called Prince of Whales Island should belong- 
wholly to Kussia. This conclusion seems quite self-evident, and is in 
harmony with the rest of the treaty. We have seen no other expla- 
nation worthy of consideration so much as suggested. 

IT. It having been decided after years of controversy that the paral- 
lel of 54 and 40' should constitute the essential part of the ])oun(larv 
line, it pro))ably did not occur to any of the parties concerned that 
before stating where the boundary line should diverg(> from it, they had 
omitted to state that the said boundary line should follow the parallel 
to the point of divergence from the point on that parallel where the}- 
specified the boundary line should begin. Nevertheless, as we have 
already shown, there is no other conclusion in harmony with the prog- 
ress of the negotiations, and it has been tacitly accepted for half a cen- 
tury by all concerned. We therefore hold that the intent of Article III 
of the Convention of 1825 is to be taken as if the interpolated words 
in brackets formed part of it: 

Commencing from the southernmost point of tlie island called I'rinee of Wales' 
Island, which point lies in the parallel of 54 degrees 40 minutes north latitude, and 
between the KJlst and i;3:]rd degrees of west longitude (nn'ridian of Greenwich) the 
said line [proceeding along the said parallel of 54° 40'] shall ascend to the north 
along the channel called Portland Channel, (etc.) 

Is. At this point we come across another difficulty, or, rather, one 
has been suggested very recentl3\ By a careful study of Vancouver's 
text it is evident that there is on this point a certain discrepancy 
betw(>en his charts and his text. In reading over his whole account of 
the survey of this iidet and its branches (Vancouver, ofiicial English 
edition. Vol. II, pp. 32J», 830, 331, 334-340. and 371), he seems to have 



dall-daws(ix DiscrssioN. 105 

ViiriiMl a little in his notions, ])ut his tinal treatment of Observatory 
Inlet extends it to Points \\'ales and Maskelyne. while in anothei- j)lace 
lie seems to regard it as l)euinnini>- at Point Kamsden (cf. <>p. vlt. II, 
p. 375). On the other hand, he treats Portland Inlet as continuing to 
the sea behind ^^'ales and Pearsc Islands. So that, if the treaty is to 
be tried by Vancouver's text, it will result in giving to Great Britain 
the above-mentioned islands and some other small ones. 

But on Vancouver's charts 'the names of Portland Canal and Observ- 
atory inlet are not extended southward to the main l)ody of the iidet 
south of Point Kamsden. They are attached to the two bifurcations 
extending northward of wdiich Portland Canal is the longer and most 
important. This is especially marked on chart 7, where there is abun- 
dance of room for extending the names southward if that had been 
desired by the cartographer. On the other chart, that of the north- 
west coast in general (No. 8, French edition), which is on a very nuich 
smaller scale, the names, especially '"Entree de I'Observatoire," do 
extend some distance south of Point Kamsden; but when compared 
with the larger and nuich more detailed chart 7, wdiere this is not the 
case, the inference by a non-critical observer would be merely that 
there is not room for the name on chart 3 alongside the inlet north- 
ward from Point Kamsden, and that the extension was luerely acci- 
dental. At all events, the larger and moi-e detailed chart would be 
likely to produce the sti'ongest impression on the minds of those exam- 
ining l)oth, and we may be quite certain, in view of the education at 
that time in vogue, that none of these gentlemen were geographers or 
qualified geographical critics. 

There Avill therefore be little improbability in the assumption that 
the longer northern part and the broader southern part were I'egarded 
as one inlet, under the name of Portland Chamiel or Canal, to which 
Observatory Inlet became tril)utary at Point Kamsden. This on the 
same i)rinciple, l)v which of a ncnvly-mapped river the largest and 
most important ramitication is selected to bear the river name from its 
source to the sea, while others are regarded as tributaries. 

This is the natural view to take, as nobody would mouse out the 
minutije of Vancouver''s text when the}' had, as thev might justly infer, 
the resultant of it in the graphic form of his detailed chart. This view 
I believe to have been taken by the negotiators, as it certainly has since 
been taken by the British Admiralty olhce, on its charts (LS.j3).and by 
everybody else until the pi'esont revival of controversy. 

19. It will hardly be denied that, in the construction of the meaning 
of the ti'eaty, we are to be guided ))v what the negotititors had ])efore 
them, and the ideas they held, rather than by what was unknown and 
unconsidered by thcMu. It can not be assumed that these gentliMuen. 
after the manner of anticpiaries or philologists, made searching investi- 
gations into Vancouver's nomenclature or microscopic comparisons of 
his charts one with another. 

The most reasonal)le. indeed, we may fairly say. in \iiMv of all the 
<>vidence. the only reasonabh* conclusion is that they took as a l)asis for 
their discussion, without research or special comparison in details, the 
two charts (Nos. 3 and 7, French edition) in \'ancouver*s atlas which 
relatecl to the region concerned; that they assumed their essential cor- 
rectness for the pur])ose and were well aware that no other charts 
existed to wdiich a hio-her o"rad(^ of accuracv could b(> assii»*ned. 



106 DALL-DAWSON DISCUSSION. 

I may add that there are to be found in Vaneouver''s text, when care- 
fully eonipared with hi.s charts, several instances of such discrepancies. 
No one can he surprised at this wiien aware of the niehmcholy circum- 
stances under which his life was terminated just as his rejjort was issu- 
ing- from the press. I may add that, as is the oeneral rule in such 
cases, subsequent" g'eographers have followed the charts rather than 
the text in their use of the work. 

2U. We conclude, then, that an unpartisan survey of the circum- 
stances would lead to the acceptance, in this instance, of the usage 
which has obtained among- geograpliers in general, and those of the 
British Admiralty in particular, since the negotiation was conclud(Hl, 
and against which no single objection lias l)een raised until the pi'esent 
time. Besides the fact that it has been adopted, the line drawn through 
Portland Inlet has the o])vious advantage of being the natural as well 
as the conventional wa}' northward of the boundary departing* from 
the parallel of 54^ 40'; and that this was the reason it was selected by 
the Kussian negotiators I have not personally a particle of doubt. 

The passage l)ehind Pearse and Wales Islands is very narrow and 
obstructed by rocks. It also has several entrances at its southw^estern 
extreme, which would lead to new dithculties of selection. Pearse and 
Wales Islands, though not small, are very narrow, high, rocky, bold 
islands, valueless for any purposes as far as now known. The general 
features of this vicinity are indicated on the CJ. S. Coast Survey recon- 
naissance charts reproduced herewith. 

21. As we are confronted by a hiatus in the wording- of the treaty, 
which jumps from Cape ^luzon ("the southernmost point of Prince of 
Wales Island") to Portland Canal or Channel, so, as we proceed in 
order, at the head of the inlet we are met with another hiatus in the 
wording: 

The said line shall ascend to the north along the channel called Portland Channel 
as far as the point of the continent where it strikes the 56th degree of north latitude. 

Now by Vancouver's observations Portland Canal does not reach the 
fifty-sixth degree of north latitude. By the most recent British survey, 
even including the estuary of a small stream at the head, the inlet falls 
short of that latitude about 8 miles, but on Vancouver's chart about 
five times as much. Vancouver is probal)ly wrong in the latitude, l)ut 
this is of no help to us. Furthermore: 

From the last mentioned point the line of demarcation shall follow the sinnmit of 
the mountains situated parallel to the coast (etc.). 

Now, if the channel did reach the latitude of of) degrees north, there 
would necessai'ily be a hiatus between it and the ""sunnnitof the moun- 
tains"' for which no provision is made. 

The rational rendering of the clause is not difficult to conceive. 
The negotiators merely intended that, following the channel as long as 
it was available, the line should be projected in the same direction 
until it reached the said parallel, along which it was to extend to the 
summit of the mountains which are rej^resented on Vancouver's chart 
7, as existing in this vicinity in about latitud(^ 55"^ 50' to 55^ 55' north, 
and on his general cliart in latitude 5(i to 5t)' 15'. The mean latitude 
for the summit would l)e about latitude 50 degrees. That this is the 
correct explanation is confirmed b}' Stapleton, who says: 

The line * * * was * * * to ascend to the north along Portland Chan- 
nel as far as the point of the continent where it vould itrike the 56th degree of north 
latitude, etc. 



D ALL-DA WSON DTSCFSSION. 107 

This is obviousl}' the intorpi-etution whicli coiiiiiion sense would sucr- 
gest ill the absence of sucli historical t-onlii-niation. 

22. As the •* summit of the mountains" and the waters of the chatuiel 
can not be conceived to physically coincide it is obvious that their inter- 
section was not intended. It was perfectly ajiparent that the channel 
and the tifty -sixth dej>ree of north latitude were separated on Vancouv- 
er's chart by some 15 g-eographical miles, consequently an intersection 
of these two could not have been intended. But the only remaining 
construction which can be put upon the wording is that the line of 
demarkation and the tifty-sixth parallel should intersect, which is in 
accordance with conuuon sense and the historic record, as well as the 
sul)se(iuent usage of the parties interested, and nuist therefore be 
adopt(Ml. 

28. We now come to the ""crest of the mountnins situated parallel 
to the coast." What could have suggested this expression t We turn 
to Vancouver's charts for a reply. There we find the area behind the 
sea-level on the mainland covered with the conventional signs, which, 
in the cartography of those days, signitied mountainous or broken 
country. The area so treated varies in width on ditlerent parts of the 
coast and is bounded on the interior by a much higher and, for the most 
part, continuous range of mountains, indicated in the conventional 
manner. This range is separated from the sea by a distiince which, in 
some places, does not much exceed 5 miles, while in other places, meas- 
ured at right angles to the axis of the range, it is over 40 miles. 

We have already shown that a mean position for the crest, taking- 
charts 3 and 7 into consideration, is very close to oG degrees north lat- 
itude, at the intersection of the produced " line of demarkation " north of 
Portland Channel. In logic as well as trigonometry, one intersection of 
two projected lines gives probability to the correctness of its location, 
])ut a third coinciding with the tirst amounts to proof po-iitive of the 
correctness of the joint intersection. We may fairly claim, then, to have 
established in this mauner the following tirst principles: 

(1) That it was the '" line of demarkation" which was to intersect 
with the tifty-sixth parallel. 

(2) That the '•summit of the mountxins" was the crest of the range 
represented on the chart as coinciding practically with the above inter- 
section. 

2-1:. Furthermore, though there are numerous spurs and short ranges 
of less importance indicated more or less scattered over the conven- 
tional mountainous area, the above range is the only one which pre- 
serves, together with a general parallelism to the coast, a fairly con- 
tinuous domination over all other mountains represented on the chart 
l)etween Portland Canal and the meridian of 141 degrees west of 
Greenwich. It was (assuming its existence, as the negotiators must 
have done) the obvious and onlj' natural line of demarcation possible 
under the circumstances. 

There are, however, a few l)reaks in this natural ramfoart as iudi- 
cated by Vancouver; the most marked on the general chart is at the 
head of the Taku Inlet or estuary. For the bridging of these some pro- 
vision was necessary; so in the following article it was provided that 
when the crest (crete) of these mountains shall ])rove to be at more 
than ten marine leagues from the ocean the limit or boundary shall be 
formed — 

by a line parallel to the sinuosities of the coast and which ^liall nevor exceed the 
distance often marine leajsues therefrom. 



108 DALL-DAWSON DISCUSSION. 

25. Had tho t()i)()<irai)liy of the main-land l)ccn really what the 
neg-otiators supposed and what Vancoiuer (le})ieted. it is not probable 
that any important diti'erenee ot" opinion would ever have arisen about 
the boundtirv. 

But we now have the best of reasons for the belief that no such 
dominatino- rang-e exists, at least until the Alpine region west and 
north of Cross Sound and tlie Alexander Archipelago is reached. 
What shall be substituted for it with justice to our neighbors and the 
proper reservation of the rights of the ITnited States is a prol)lem Avith 
which this memorandmn is not concerned. Here we have endeavored 
to resuscitate, as far as practical)le, the circumstances under which 
the deHnition of the Russian territory was produced, th(^ circumstances 
which determin(Ml its wording, and a fair and unpartisan construction 
of its intended meaning-. If we have succeeded in throwing any light 
on these obscure points our object will have been accomplished. 



Supplementary rnemoranduin on the rlcir« of General Cameron^ as suh- 
mitted in the letter of Dr. George M. Dawson to Sir Charles Tupper^ 
in regard to the Alashin hoimdary^ Ixj Willi<nit IF. T)(di . 

1. The letter herewith reprinted w^as courteously furnished with the 
permission of Sir Charles Tupper by Dr. Dawson. It had been re- 
quested b}' the writer, in order that some definite statement might be 
had of some very surprising claims which were ])eing discussed by un- 
oilicial agencies. As those of a venerable and gallant otticer, however 
unversed in history or logic. General Cameron's views deserve atten- 
tion: and, in showing their irrationality, I wish to repudiate once for 
all any intention of retiecting ui)on him i)ers()nally. or upon any of the 
enthusiastic persons north of the Tnited States who have recently 
amused themselves bv coloring maps of North America in accordance 
with those views. 

S. With the introductory remarks of Dr. Dawson, the reader who 
has followed the reasoning of my memorandum on the boundary will 
observe that 1 am in general accord. One exception to this n)ust be 
taken. Dr. Dawson says: 

The fart alone that these conventional mountain features are not even similarly 
j)laeed on the corresponding portions of Vancouver's overlai)pino: charts, must have 
been sufficient to show that no dejiendence could be plac^ed on them. The onl\^ line 
of mountains which is i)ractically identical on the various charts, and the existence 
of which could l)e confirmed l)y reference to Vancouver's detailed description, is that 
which is represented as everywhere rising immediately from the coast and which 
borders upon the>sea. It is therefore to tlu' summits of these mountains immediately 
bordering the coast tliat the words of the convention must be understood to refer. 
Only in the case of the al)sence of mountains is the 10 marine league limit admissi- 
ble, and then under certain conditions, for general parallelism with the coast is also 
essential. 

It was no doubt in conseiiuence of the distinctly conventional mode of representa- 
tion of the mountains on Vancouver's charts, and the necessary inference that they 
did not accurately represent the facts, that the limiting clause was inserted in the 
convention. 

3. I have already shown in my memorandum that (1) there is no rea- 
son to believe that Vancouver's charts and text were subjected to any 
critical comparison whatever. If there had been any one competent to 
critically compare them concerned in the matter, it is highly improbable 



DALL-DAWSON DISCUSSION. 109 

tluit so slipshod :i definition of tiie boundary line would ever have been 
adopted. 

(2) There is not in \'ancouver's Atlas any continuous line of moun- 
tains represented as cver^'where arising- innnediateU' from the coast and 
which borders upon the sea. The sea-shore forms the edge of an area 
conventionally indicated as mountainous, which is a ditierent thing-. 
Moreover, the true line of mountains has, I l)elieve, been positively 
identified in the memorandum. 

(3) I have already stated what seem to me to l)c the obvious reasons 
for the insertion of the limiting clause. 

-t. General Cameron's views may i)e taken up seriatim. As quoted 
by Dr. Dawson the\' begin: 

In the second clause of the fourth article provision is made for the case of the 
mountains being found at more than 10 marine leagues inland, and it is there laid 
down that the measurements shall be made not from inlets, but from the ocean. 

It will be observed here that the insertion of the words "not from 
inlets, but" gives what is really a very false impi"ession, though doubt- 
less not so intended. It assumes the whole point of contention, and 
can not be admitted as it stands. The general continues: 

The convention stipulates, "Que partout ou la crete des montagnes, qui s'^tendent 
dans une direction parallele a la cote * * * se trouverait ;i la distance de plus de 
dix lienes marines de I'ocean * * * la limite * * * sera formce par une ligne 
parallele a la cute, et qui ne pourra jamais en etre eloignee que de dix lieues marines." 

The word ocean is wholly inapplicable to inlets. 

This last sentence, it will be observed, is pure assumption, unsup- 
ported by reason, history, or fact, but a very convenient way of 
deciding the question in advance and saving the troul)le of making an 
argument. The decision naturally follows with military promptitude — 

consequently the line, whether marked by mountains or only by a survey line, has to 
be drawn without reference to inlets. 

Had it not been so clearly provided against by express stipulation in the second 
clause of the fourth article of the convention — 

Unfortunatel}' there does not appear to be an}- "clear provision'" or 
"express stipulation" in the second clause of the fourth article which 
bears upon the general line of announcement (for w^e can not call it 
argument) which the general is giving us; but in the next clause we 
come at last upon something tangible, as follows: 

and by the accepted principles of international law, it might, in the case of the 
absence of mountains, be agreed that the ])rea<lth of the liwre" should be measured 
from the sea water's edge, wherever — in inlet or elsewhere — it outlined the continent, 
and that this being the coast-line, where no mountains exist within 10 leagues, is 
equally the coast-line whence to determine the mountains nearest to the coast. 

But, as said above, inlets in either alternative, the occurrence or non-occurrence 
< if mi )untains within 10 leagues, are not part of the coa'st line determining the bonndarj-. 

The last paragraph is again pureh' annunciatory: But to proceed: 

Noiie of the inlets between Portland Channel and the meridian of 141 degrees west 
longitude are 6 miles in wiflth, excepting, perliaps, a short part of Lyiui Canal; con- 
sequently, with that possible exception, tlie width of territory on the coast assigned 
under the convention to Russia may not be measured from any point within the 
mouths of the inlets. All the waters within the mouths of the inlets* are as much 
territorial waters, according to an universally admitted international law, as those 
of a fresh-water lake or stream would be under analogous circumstances. 

" Llsiere literally means fist, the continuous strip of selvage on the edge of woolen 
cloth, and hence has l^ecome applical)le to any continuous narrow strip or margin- 
ating band. 

20(326— AP S 



110 DALL-DAWSON DISCUSSION. 

As far as non-mountainous countrios may extend, but within 10 marine leagues of 
the ocean, the inlets are in fact included i)y the convention within la I isl^re de cote 
mentioiiec ci-dcssus conniw devant <ij)jMi)ieiiir a Ik linssif. 

On the other hand, so much of tlie&e inlets as happen to be in mountainous terri- 
tory, or beyond 10 marine leagues froui the ocean, together with the dry land about 
the'm, is assigned to Great Britain as much as are rivers and lakes in the same regions. 

Nothing short of an express stipulation to the contrary effect would, it is conceived, 
serve to maintain the proposition that iidand waters in the lisiere dt cntf assigned to 
Russia were not jjart and parcel of that Ihierc. But if they were really part and 
jiarcel of the Ui^icrc itself, their mere existence can not possibly be a reasonable foun- 
dation for arguing that they involve an increase of the breadth of the lisitre of which 
they are component parts. 

The limits of the lisihre are by the convention expressly dependent on the relative 
positions of ocean line and neighl)oring mountain line. The only reference to inlets 
in the convention (Art. VII) is in a form almost directly declaratory of assent to the 
doctrine of territorial authority over them. 

Thoiiyh expressed with extreme obscurit}' of language, the idea 
which lies at the bottom of this contention is at least perceptible. 

Civilized nations have agreed that to a certain limit from the shore 
the waters of the ocean and their ramifications shall be as subject to 
the sovereign authority of the seaboard nation for administrative pur- 
poses as if those parts were dry land. 

By a legal fiction, for such purposes this part of the ocean is called 
territory^ though not one drop of water is converted into land b^- that 
fiction. 

Now comes General Cameron with this legal fiction as a yard-stick, 
and proposes to measure the area of a piece of property which is held 
by a deed expressed in "metes and boiuids." In other and homely 
phrase, he is trying to " measure clover-seed by the yard." 

5. Apart from the essential and inexpugnal)le irrationality of such a 
proceeding, the contention may l)e refuted with ease in several ways: 

(1) By the historical method. The historical development of the 
Russian colonies in America in their territorial relation has been traced 
in my ""'memorandum." It is not necessary to recapitulate it here. 
It is needless to say that it gives no support to General Cameron's 
h3^pothesis. It shows that Russia needed, asked, and obtained the pos- 
session of the entire undivided coast margin, subject onW to a hypo- 
thetical right of navigation through the rivers heading in the interior, 
which was never exercised. 

(2) By the rcd-Kctio ad ahsvrdiDii. It happens that there are none of 
the islands in the archipelago north of Dixon's Entrance which do not 
at some point approach within 6 miles of one another or of the con- 
tinental shore. They are all mountainous. As General Cameron, if he 
applies his hypothesis, has no right to apply it partially or imperfectly, 
it will follow that all the archipelago for that purpose will become 
solid land. Of this "land " there would be a strip, excluding all of the 
continent, in no place less than 50 and sometimes over SO miles wide. 
Under the treaty not over 80 miles from the ocean could be possessed 
by Russia when not mountainous, and as the mountains come to the sea 
nearly all the way from Cape JNIuzon to Cape Spencer, the only prop- 
erty possessed by Russia in the archipelago would have been (1) 
Prince of Wales Island, which in the treaty is absolutely given to her, 
and (2) a strip a mile or two in average width on the ocean shores of 
the most seaward of the islands. It is perfectly eas^' to verify this 
if one would take such trouble, and it is certainl}^ absurd enough for 
any bod)'. 



DALL-DAWSON DISCUSSION. Ill 

There are other ways, if more were needed, of puiicturino- this hypoth- 
esis, ])ut the above will sutlice for the present. 

♦5. There is a point in General Cameron's next paraorsiph whicii illus- 
trates how remarkably the line of eontention adopted by him lends itself 
to arounient in any direction. 

The paragraph is as follows: 

If the sovereignty over inlets does not pass in accordance with the doctrine that 
they are part and parcel of the surrounding territory there was no occasion for the 
reciprocal concession made in the seventh article for right to navigate these inlets. 

Those who have followed the historical data of my memorandum will 
not need to be told that the concession in Article VII, which allows ten 
years' free trade in the archipelaoo, w^as given to Great Britain because 
it "had been given to the United States one year before, and w^as given 
to the United States as a sort of sop, to (juiet the cry for permanent 
rights of trading there, owing to the fact that American vessels had 
traded there freely for nearh' thirty 3^ears. 

Moreover, if by General Cameron's hypothesis the heads of all the 
inlets were British territory there was no need of any concession by 
Russia for her to reach them. She would have had the right of access, 
without any treaty, to her own ports, b}' the most ordinary principles 
of law, and any such concession as that of Russia would have operated 
to diminish and derogate from those rights rather than increase them, 
unless it distinctly stated in set terms that the right of trading and 
navigation through the archipelago was in addition to the rights of 
w^hich Great Britain (by that hypothesis) was already in possession. 

7. It is. of course, in view of all the facts, nothing less than prepos- 
terous to suppose that Russia would have accepted a treat}' which cut 
her ''strip" of main-land into several portions, or that Great Britain, 
having the right to occupy with trading posts the richest fur region of 
the archipelago, and represented bv the Hudson's Bay Company, the 
keenest corporation of that period, should nevertheless not only not 
assert and use these rights, but on the other hand pa}' money and otter 
skins for these ver}' privileges to a foreign and competing corporation. 

8. General Cameron continues: 

Regarded from this point of view rivers and inlets are identical. As reasonable, 
then, would it be to hold that under the convention the breadth of the lisih^e assigned 
to Russia is determined by the head waters of its rivers as that the head waters of 
its creeks and inlets regulate its breadth. 

In this we heartily agree with the general, and believe not only that 
it is ''as reasonable," but that it is the undoubted and invincible truth 
that the river valleys are not the "crest of the mountains," and when 
they extend more than 80 miles from the coast that the seaward portion 
of them is the propert}-^ and possession of the United States up to the 
30-miIe "line drawn parallel to the sinuosities of the coast." 

9. We now come to the second part of the general's report, which 
treats of the Portland Canal or Inlet (piestion. In this we discover the 
soldierly (|ualities of his pen as conspicuously exhibited as heretofore, 
and with even more courage. He attacks the theory that Portland 
Canal means Portland Canal, and demolishes it as follows: 

With further reference to the position of the boundary, as provided for by the 
convention, it mav be stated that the contention has beeii advanced by the Govern- 
ment of British Columbia that the words "dite Portland Channel "' in Article III 
are palpably erroneous an<l not in conformity with the detailed description of the 
coui-se of the line, on the following grounds: 



112 DALI,-DAWSUN DISCUSSION. 

The i)orti(>n of the article in question reads: "A partir du point le phis meridional 
de File dite Prince of Wales * * * la dite limine reniontera an nord le loiij: de la 
passe dite Portlitud C7((U)//(^/ jusqu'au point de la terre ferme ou elle atteint le 56nie 
degre de latitude nord," etc. 

Now, to reach the entrance of Portland Channel from the point first defined the 
line must run about 50 miles east of north, and, inoreover, bj- ascending Portland 
Channel it can not strike the main-land in latitude 5(5 degrees north, as the channel 
terminates before reaching this latitude, and was known so to terminate at the time 
of Vancouver's survey. 

If, however, the name only of Portland Channel be omitted, and the directions 
given be precisely followed, the line will ascend Clarence Strait and reach the main- 
land at the stated latitude and by the stated course. The several directions with 
respect to the line of boundary may, it is argued, be considered as more authoritative 
than the single mention of Portland Channel. 

The inner meaning of this heroic argument i.s that its originator has 
discovered that between the termination of Portland Canal and latitude 
66 degrees north thei'e is a hiatus, and he thereupon goes about to 
find a wa}" to dispense with that hiatus. He is so much eno-rossed bj^ 
the fact that he has found a way to reach the parallel of i)Q degrees b^^ 
water that he has omitted to observe that by this process he has created 
a new hiatus. It is not conceivable that he regards the "crest of the 
mountains" as situated in the channel of Burroughs Bay, where he ter- 
minates his water line. But his new line provides no way for getting 
to the "crest of the mountains" from the water, so his argument, all 
other points being waived tempo rarilv, is as " palpal)ly erroneous," and 
for the same reason, as the construction it was intended to overthrow. 

Of course the historical argument, as detailed in my "memorandum," 
renders any further attention to the present hypothesis unnecessary; 
but it may not ])e undesiral)le to point out that the treaty contemplated 
that the "line of demarcation" should pass through one channel, pas- 
sage, or named l)ody of water. The new hypothesis carries it through 
three, which wei'e named by Vancouver; /. e., Clarence Strait. Behm 
Canal, and Burroughs Bay. There is no reason why this should ha\e 
been done, as the line of 56 degrees north latitude can be reached 
through Clarence Strait with less divergence from a northerly course 
than l)y the route suggested, and, though the hiatus is bigger there, 
in principle it does not differ from a smaller one. Besides this, a little 
more territory would have been added to the hypothetical Canada by 
the direct northerly line. There are other routes which present advan- 
tages, and in fact if one has courage to repudiate explicit statements 
in the treaty there is hardly anything impossil)le to be luade out of it. 

10. The general's argument then proceeds to its third point, that 
is to say, the construction to be placed on the name Portland Channel. 
Here his argument, provided one admits that the treaty is to be con- 
strued by the text of Vancouver, is sound. He says: 

Apart from the above contention of the British Columbian Government, it is at 
least certain that if the line of boundary was intended to follow Portland Channel, 
it was the channel so named by Vancouver, the lower part of which channel passes 
to the north of Wales and Pearse Islands of recent charts. The line has been erro- 
neously shown on many maps as running to the south of tliese islands, along ])art of 
Observatory Inlet of Vancouver, in conse<iuence of a confusion of nomenclature in 
the region, which it has l)een ascertained first occurreil on an Admiralty chart pub- 
lished in 1853, and which has thereafter been followed and copied on other charts 
and maps. 

This matter has already been discussed in my "Memorandum." 
The answer to the contention is that Ave nutst construe the treaty, not 
T)y the details of Vancouver's text, which were insufficiently repre- 
sented on his chart, but by the facts which the negotiators supposed 



D ALL-DA WSON DISCUSSIOIN^. 118 

they had before them in his charts and the subsequent usage of o-eoo-- 
raphers. The sticklers for the adoption of the ideas found in Van- 
couver's text may safely be challen^'ed to tind a single map or chart 
pul)lislied before 18(50 in which the name of Porthmd Canal or Channel 
is applied to the waters behind Pearse and Wales Islands. Unless 
they can tinil a majority of the charts and maps expressing- that view 
it may be safely denied that those waters are or have been, at any 
time, to geographers '" known as Portland Channel.-*' Even the otHcial 
ma])s published in 18S-t under the direction of the Hon. W. Smithe, 
chief commissioner of lands and works for British Columliia, and on 
which General Cameron's new boundary line is inserted, still retain 
the names of Portland Canal and Observatory Inlet in the places where 
Vancouver charted them and where thev have by the common consent 
of cartographers ever since remained. 



CORRESPONDENCE RELATIVE TO THE RECIPROCITY 
CONFERENCE OF 180-2. 

Tlie Bi'ituh Minister to the Secretary of State. 

Personal & Private.] Magnolia, Mass., 15 Sept. ISOO. 

Dear Mr. Blaine, 1 have been hoping to receive a communication 
from 3'ou in replv to my official Note of August 12th which would have 
enabled us to resume our negotiations for the settlement of the Behring 
Sea question. Lord Salisbury's Despatch of August 2, of which a copy 
was inclosed in that note, contirms the views which I expressed at our 
last interview in Washington, as to the best mode of arriving at a solu- 
tion of the controversy, and 1 should be extremely obliged if you would 
infoi'm me whether I may expect to receive at an early date, 3'our 
reply to his Lordship\s Arbitration proposal. 

In the meanwhile I desire to bring to j^our notice some minor sub- 
jects of negotiation connected with fisheries, which, if agreeable to 
3'ou, might be entered upon before your return to Washington. 

The first relates to- the expediency of an international arrangement 
for the preservation of the Mackerel Fisheries on the Atlantic Coasts 
of North America, by prohi1)iting or restricting the use of purse-seine 
nets. 

The second relates to the expediency of a similar arrangement for 
the protection of the Fisheries in the inland Waters contiguous to the 
United States and Canada, by^ the adoption of uniform Kegulations 
restricting the catching of tish at times, and by means, which tend to 
exhaust those Fisheries. . 

The third relates to the complaint which you made to me some time 
ago, respecting the restrictions imposed on Newfoundland, by recent 
Legislation, on the sale of Bait. Those restrictions could be entirely 
removed as regards Aiuerican Vessels, and the comiuercial relations 
greatly improved, by a distinct arrangement, independently^ of Canada, 
based on reciprocity in matters of trade and fishery. Those questions 
are not complicated in Newfoundland with other points in ditference, 
and the separate arrangement which 1 have in mind would, I l)elieve 
be mutually advantageous. It might provide that American Vessels 
should be put })rccis('ly on the same footing as Newfoundland Vessels 
as regards purchasing ))ait, touciiing and trading, selling fisli. oil &c. 
and getting supplies; and in return that codfish, cod oil. seal oil, her- 
ring. siUmons &c., the produce of NcAvfoundland fisheries, should be 
admitted unto the United States free of duty. 

jNIay 1 ask you to favor me unotficially with your \iews on the above 
suggestions which I think it best to submit to you in the first instance 
in this private and inforiual way. If you should bo disposed to enter- 
114 



THE KECIPROCITY CONFERICNCE OF 1892. 115 

tain them, I will put them in the form of official proposals, and I shall 
be ready to proceed to liar Harbor if convenient to you, to confer 
o-enerally on the subject. 

1 remain yours .sincerely 

JULIAX PaUNCEFOTE. 

Hon. J. G. Blaine, etc., &c., &c. 



Mciinri'tindniii left vntJt the Secfetart/ of IState hy the British 3[l)iister 

December 22, 1890. 

Joint Conmiission to be appointed as in 1871 authorized to deal with- 
out limitation, and to prepare a treat}" respecting following subjects. 

1. Renewal of reciprocit}' treat}' of 1851 subject to such modifica- 
tions as the altered circumstances of both countries require — and to 
such extensions as commission may deem to be in interest of V. S. and 
Canada. 

2. Reconsideration of treaty of 1888 respecting Atlantic fisheries — 
with view of etfecting free admission of Canadian fishery products into 
markets of V . 8. in exchange for facilities for U. S. fishermen to pur- 
chase bait and supplies, and transship cargoes in Canada. All such 
privileges to be nuitual. 

8. Protection of mackerel and other fisheries on the Atlantic Ocean, 
and on Inland Waters. 

1. Relaxation of coasting laws of both countries on seal)oard. 

5. Relaxation of coasting laws of both countries on Inland Waters 
between V . 8. and Canada. 

6. Mutual salvage and saving of wrecked vessels. 

7. Arrangements for delimitation of boundary between Alaska and 
Canada. 

8uch treaties to be of course ad referendum. 



Meiiiovandvia given to the British JSLinhterhy SecYetary of State for 
'niforinatlon of British Government. December 22., 1890. 

I am satisfied that it would be utterly idle to attempt to secure the 
appointment of a formal Conmiission to consider any arrangement for 
reciprocal trade between the United 8tates and the Dominion. At the 
same time the Tnited 8tates stand ready to have a full l)ut private 
conference with the British* Minister and one or more Agents from 
Canada and will go over every point of difi'erence and consider every 
subject upon which a mutual interest could be founded. If an agree- 
ment is reached all w(dl. If not no official mention is to be made of 
the effoi'ts. — Above all things it is important to avoid all public refer- 
ence to the matter. This the Pn^sident insists upon. 

December 22, 1890. 

The British 2Iinisf< !■ in the Secretary <f State. 

Private and Confidential.] Washington, 27 Jan. 1891. 

Dear Mr. Blaine: The Canadian Govt, in deference to your pref- 
erence for an unofficial conference to discuss the question of re<-iproc- 



116 COKRESPONDENCE RELATIVE TO 

ity. are now disposed to agree to your proposal — but it would be nec- 
essary that your proposal should be made known as a ground for 
sending- the Mission. They are anxious therefore to publish their 
proposals for bases of negotiation, which I laid before you on the 22d 
ult". and to announce also that the U. S. Govt, are willing to discuss 
the question of reciprocity fully though informally, with H. ]M. Min- 
ister at Washington and one or more Canadian Delegates. Would 
you have an^^ objection to this ainioiuu-ement^ 1 should be glad to 
telegraph your reply to Lord Salisbury if possible to-day — and 1 shall 
be ready to call on you at any time, if 3"ou desire it, as 1 am much 
better this morning and the weather more favorable. 
I remain, very truly 3'ours, 

Julian Pauncefote. 
Hon. J. G. Blaine, &c., &c., &c. 



The BrltisJi Mrni^ter to the Secretary of State. 

Personal.] Washington, -ii Jrt//. 1891. 

My Dear Mr. Blaine, 1 hope you will excuse me for troubling you 
again to-day on the subject of my note to you of Tuesday last the 27th 
respecting the Canadian proposals for a reciprocit}' arrangement, but 
I am pressed again by Telegram for a reply to the inquiry contained 
in that note and 1 should be extremely obliged if you w ould enable me 
to answer it to-day, should you lind it possible to do so. 
1 remain, yours very truly, 

Julian Pauncefote. 

Hon. J. G. Blaine, &c., &c., &c. 

P. S. — The inquiry in ray note of the 2Tth was whether you have 
any objection to the announcement by the Canadian (iJovt. that your 
Govt, are willing to discuss the question of reciprocity fully though 
informally w ith H. M. Minister at Washington and one or more Cana- 
dian Delegates. 



The Tirltii^h 2Iuiidcr to tlie Secretary of State. 

Private.] 20 March 91. 

Dear Mr. Blaine, I am very sorry to hear that j^ou are still con- 
fined to the house by indisposition. As you were good enough to say 
that 1 might communicate to you any pressing in([uiry. by Icttei' I 
ventur(> to trouble you with a matter a])out which I am being pressed 
by the Canadian Govt, in case you should ha able to give me an answer 
to their question at once. 

1 remain, 3'onrs ver}^ truly, 

Julian Pauncefote. 



THE RECIPROCITY CONFERENCE OF 1^92. 117 

The Srcr<f<iri/ of State to t/ie Bi'/tt^Ji Jlin/Htti'. 

Department of State, 

Wd.s/iington, xipril 7, 1S91. 
Sir Julian Pauncefote, G. C. M. G., K. C. B. &c., &c., &c-. 

My Dear Sir Julian, I duly received the note which you did nic 
the honor to address to me on the 2(>th of March ultimo, 'I regret that 
for many reasons I have been unable to make an earlier response. 

For convenience of reference 1 here quote the substantial part of 
your note: 

In a note dated 27 January last, I had the pleasure to inform you confidentially, 
that the Canadian Government, in deference to your jn-eference for an unotiicial 
conference on the question of reciprocity, were disposed to meet your wishes in that 
respect. 

It was understood that you would be ready after the 4th of March to discuss the sub- 
ject unofficially with me and one or more agents from Canada. I have now received 
de.spatches from the Governor General of Canada in which he reipiests me to ascer- 
tain from you whether the present time is convenient to you for that purpose, in 
which case the Representatives appointed by the Canadian Government will proceed 
at once to Washington to confer in the manner proposed on all or any of the sub- 
jects indicated in the bases of negotiation, of which I had the honor to place a copy 
in your hands on the 22d. of December last. 

A copy of the bases of negotiation which you placed in my hands on 
the 22d. of December last is appended hereto. You told me. if \\\\ 
memor}' is not in error, that you were instritcted by Lord Salisbur}^ 
to propose the topics to the United States for discussion and if pos- 
sible for agreement. I answered you that I felt sure that the Presi- 
dent would l)e unwilling to appoint a commission to consider the 
propositions as they were stated and furthermore that I should be 
unwilling to suljmit them to the President. 

After some further consideration, in which you repeated that the 
propositions were merely the bases upon which a discussion might be 
instituted, 1 replied that in any event I had not a moment to give to 
the subject until after the adjournment of Congress in March, but 
that after that date I would be willing, in response to your re(]uest "to 
have a full but private conference with the British Minister and one 
or more agents from Canada, and go over every point of difference 
and consider every sul)ject upon which a mutual interest could be 
founded. If an agreement is reached, all well; if not, no otticial 
mention is to be made of the effort. Above all things it is important 
to avoid pu))lic reference to the matter." 

While no notes were exchanged between us, I cai'efuliy minuted my 
modification of the paper you left with me containing Lord Salisburj^'s 
propositions and did so immediately after you left the Department. 
You will ol)serve the private character which I wish to impart to the 
conference is recognized by you a month later in your note of Januaiy 
27, when you called the correspondence '•confidential." 

In view of the fact that you had come to the State Department with 
the proposals and that the subject was thus for the tirst time mentioned 
between us, and in view of the further fact that I agreed to '"a pri- 
vate conference" as explained in my minute. 1 confess that it was a 
surprise to me when several weeks later, during the Canadian canvass, 
Sir John McDonald aiul Sir Charles Tupper both stated before public 
assemblages that an informal discussion of a Reciprocity treaty would 



118 CORRESPONDENCE RELATIVE TO 

take place at Washington after the 4th of March, " by the initiation of 
the Secreturv of State." 

I detail these facts because I deem it important, since the matter has 
been for some weeks open to public "remark, to have it settled that the 
conference was not "initiated'' by me, but, on the contrary, that the 
jjrivate arrangement of which I spoke was but a modilication of your 
proposal and in no sense an orio-inal sug-o-estion from the Goverment 
of the United States. 

With this explanation, it only remains for me to say that gentlemen 
representing the Dominion of Canada and proposing to discuss the 
commercial relations of the two countries, may be assured of a cour- 
teous and cordial i-eception in Washington by the Government of the 
United States. 

I have the honor, cVcc. 

James G. Blaine. 



The Brit'ixh Min hter to the Secretary of State. 

4 April 1891, 9.30 P. M. 
Dear Mr. Blaine, I have just received the enclosed Telegram from 
Sir Charles Tupper — from which 1 fear that he and his Colleagues 
must have started before he received my Telegram to him advising 
him of the contents of your letter to him which arrived here after his 
departure for Ottawa. The}" are evidently now on their Avay to Wash- 
ington as the enclosed Telegram is dated from "Rouses Point Depot 
N. y." I hope this will not cause 3^ou any inconvenience, as I gather 
from your letter to Sir Charles Tapper that you did not propose to 
defer the date of our meeting l)e3"ond a few days. 
Believe me, truly yours, 

Julian Pauncefote. 
Hon. J. G. Blaine, &c., &c., &c. 



The Br'dhlt Minister to the Seevctary of State. 

British Legation, 

Washwyton, D. C, April 8, 1891. 
Dear Mr. Blaixe: I beg to thank you for your note of the 6th in 
which you propose the 12th of October as the date for opening the 
adjourned conference on reciprocal trade relations between the United 
States and Canada. 

1 have transmitted a copy of your note to the Governor General 
and shall have the honor to address you again as soon as I receive His 
Excellency's reply. 

1 I'cmain, dear Mr. Blaine, very sincerel}^ yours, 

Julian Pauncefote. 



THE RECIPROCITY CONFERENCE OF 1892. 119 

The British Minister to tJie Secretary of State. 

British Legation, 
Washington, D. (7., ApvillS, 1891. 
Dear ]Mk. Bi.aixe, Inimodiately upon receipt of 3^our letter of the 
6th instant sugo•e^^tino• the 12th of 0('tol)er next as the date agreeal)le 
to the United States Government for openino- the Conference at Wash- 
ington regarding the United States and Canada, I comnuinicated a 
cop3' of it to the Governor General of Canada, and I now have the 
honor to enclose a copy of the answer which I have received from His 
Excellenc.v in reply to my connnunicatioii. 
I am, 3'ours sincerely, 



Julian Pauncefote. 



Hon. James G. Beaine, &.c.. &c., &c, 



[Enclosure.] 

Tlie Governor General of Canada to the British Minister. 

(tovernmext House, 
Ottaira, Canada, 14th April, 1891. 
Sik: I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch No. 15 of the 
5th instant enclosing a note from Mr. Blaine in which he suggests the 12th of C)cto- 
ber next as the date agreealile to the United States Government for oi)ening the Con- 
ference at Washington regarding reciprocal trade relations between the two co\intries. 
In reply I shall be ol)liged if Your Excellency will be good enough to inform Mr. 
Blaine that the Rei)resentatives of the Canadian Government will readily hold them- 
selves at dis])osal for the purpose mentioned in your despatch now under acknowl- 
edgment and at the date named by the United States Government. 
I have, etc., 

Stanley of Preston. 

Sir Julian P.vuncei-'ote, G. C. M. G., etc., etc., etc. 



Meworandmn hft at Dcpartinent of State hij the BritisJi Minister. 

British Legation, 

\Va.'<}iin(/ton, J). O. 

Her MaiestY's Go\ ernment have not felt able to pro- 
Convention. ceed With the proposcfl Convention, unless par* passu 

with the proposed Canadian negotiations and they con- 
tinue to hope that it may be found possible to arrive at a satisfactory 
conclusion upon both subjects. 
May 21, ISOI. 



The BritisJi Minister to the Actln</ Serr<tari/ <f State. 

British Le(;ation. 
Wishiiajton, D. a, Octoher2, 1891. 
Dear Mii. ^\'llAlr^oN•. On the occasion of our intinview at the State 
Department on Tuesday of tli(> 20th ultimo, you informed me that the 
Secretary of State would not return to the Capital until the end of 
this month, and you suggested that the visit of the Canadian Kepre- 
sentativcs to ^Vashington to discuss reciprocal trade arrangements, 



120 CORRESPONDPmCE RELATIVE TO 

which Wiis Hxod for the 1:2th instant should l)e postponod. in order to 
enable Mr. Bltiine to be present. 1 at once connnunicated with the 
Governor-General of Canada on the subject, and his reply is to the 
efl'ect that the Government of Canada will willinoly meet the conven- 
ience of the Government of the United States as to the date of the 
meetino-, but that they would prefer that it should 1)6 held before the 
Christmas holidays, as the Dominion Parliament will probably assem- 
ble aoain soon after that time. 
I am, Very truly yours, 

Julian Pauncefote. 
Hon. William F. Wharton, &c., &c., &c. 



The Bv'dhh 2T!ii!stti' to tJtr Secretdry of State. 

Bkitish Legation, 11^ Januartj 1802. 

Dear Mr. Blaine: I informed Lord Stanley of your readiness to 
receive the delegation from Canada and of your desire ""that it may 
not become a public atiair as it did before.'' 

Lord v^tanle}" has replied that owing- to bye-elections now going on, 
the Dominion Ministers will be occupied in the Provinces until al)out 
the second week of next month. But they could be in Washington 
on the 10th of February if that date would suit your convenience. 

His Excellency adds that the Dominion Government, while giving 
all possible eti'ect to your wish for privacy, cannot prevent the move- 
ments of Ministers being known, or avoid answering questions which 
may subsequently be asked in Parliament respecting the general 
results of the discussion. 

Will you kindly inform me whether it will be agreeable to 3^ou to 
receive the delegation on the 10th of Februar}^ i 
I am, dear Mr. Blaine, yours very truly, 

Julian Pouncefote. 

Hon. James G. Blaine, etc., etc., etc. 



The British J/i/ii.ste/' to the !Secreianj of Stafr. 

Personal.] British IjEGAtion, January 27, 1802. 

Dear Mr. Blaine: I should be extremel}- ol^liged if you would 
favour me with an answer to the inquiry contained in 1113^ private 
Note of the l-tth Instant, whether it would be agreeable to 3^ou to 
receive the Delegation from Canada on the 10th of Februarv next, as 
I am pi'esscd for an answer by Lord Stanley. 

Will 3^ou l)e kind enough to inform me at the same time whether 
Monday the 1st proximo will be a convenient date on which to open 
the Behring Sea Joint Conuuission. Sir G. Baden Powell and Doctor 
Dawson propose to be here on Saturday next and will be ready to meet 
the United States Conunissioners on the following Mondav. 

I am anxious to send a r(q)ly h\ telegraph to Canada on both points 
toda3\ 

I am, dear Mr. Blaine, yours very trulv. 

Julian Pauncefote. 

Hon. James G. Blaine, &c., &c., &c. 



THE RECIPROCITY CONFERENCE OF 18!i2. 121 

TJie Secretary of State to the Britixh Minister. 

Dei'ahtmknt of State, 
Washington, February i, 1892. 
Sir Julian Pauxcefote, G. C. M. G., K. C. B., &c., <S:c., &c. 

My dear Sir Julian: I have to advi.se _vou that, in accordance 
with your request we will receive the gentlemen from Canada who 
wish to discuss reciprocity between the two countries, on the 10th of 
February; it must be kept constantly in mind that tiie meeting is to 
be altogether an informal one. 

Very sincerel}^ yours, James G. Blaine. 



The Secretary of State to the Briti'<h Minider. 

17 Madison Place, 
Ayashinqton, 27th Feb., 1892. 
Sir Julian Pauncefote, G. C. M. G., K. C. B. 

My Dear Sir Julian: There was nothing which occurred at our 
conference that Sir John Thompson cannot fully speak of in Parlia- 
ment or elsewhere. 

I shall assuine the right to do the same thing- here at the proper time. 
The conference was \'ery frank. Neither party said anything which 
should cause them to desire secrecy. 

Yours verv trulv, James G. Blaine, 



The Secretary of State to Mr. Fostrr. 

Department of State, 

Vya^h)n<it<ni. ]\"oreniher Jj,, 1899. 

Hon. John W. Foster, 

W(/.'<hin(/ton, D. C. 

Sir: In a despatch from Lord Salisbury to Mr. I'ower, Charge 
d'Atfaires ad interim of Great Britain at this capital, dated October 
14, 1899, a copy of which is enclosed herewith, reference is made to a 
conference wliich took place at this Department in Fel)ruarv 1S92 
between Secretary Blaine and yourself on the part of the United States 
and the British Ambassador in '\\'ashington and certain meml)ers of 
the Canadian Cal)inet representing the Government of Great Britain. 

As the conference was regarded l>y Secretary Blaine as wholly of an 
informal character, no record of its sessions exists in this Department. 
I shall thank you, therefore, to give me such a statement as 3'ou may 
be able to make respecting what took place at the conference, espe- 
cially on the subject of the Alaskan l)oundarv. 

I have the honor to be, Sir, your obedient servant 

John Hay. 

(Enclosure as above.) 



122 CORRESPONDENCE RELATIVE TO 

J//'. Fofitcr to the Scci'etanj of State. 

Washington, Novernher 7, 1S99. 
Hon. John Hay, Seet'etary of State. 

Sir: I have the lionor to acknowledg-e the receipt of youi- letter of 
the -tth instant, with which you enclose a copy of a despatch of Lord 
Salisbury to Mr. Tower, British Charg-e in Washington, of the 14th 
ultiuio, and you ask me to give you a statement of what occurred 
regai-ding the (piestion especially of the Alaskan Boundary at the Con- 
ference held in Washington in Fe])ruaiy 1892. 

The Conference to which Lord Salisbury's despatch refers met for 
its first session in the Diplomatic Room of the Department of State on 
February 10, 1S92, and three additional sessions were held, a tinal 
adjournment taking- place February loth. The Conference w^as the 
result of a coi'respondence Avhich had extended over eighteen months. 
After some preliminary inquiries, the British Minister handed to Sec- 
retarv Blaine, on December 22, 1890, a memorandum proposing a joint 
commission to prepare a treat}^ respecting- the subjects named. The 
first provided for a reciprocity treaty between the United States and 
Canada. The next five subjects related to the Atlantic fisheries and 
various trade and maritime matters. The last was as follows: "7. Ar- 
rangements for delimitation of boundary between Alaska and Canada." 

Mr. Blaine's answer to the proposition was that it would be useless 
"to attempt to secure the appointment of a formal commission for 
reciprocal trade between the United States and the Dominion;"' but 
that the United States was ready to have a "private conference with 
the British Minister and one or more agents from Canada" upon any 
point of ditference between them. On January 27, 1891, Sir Julian 
Pauncefote addressed Mr. Blaine a "private and confidential" note, 
stating- that "the Canadian Government in deference to your prefer- 
ence for an unofiicial conference to discuss the question of reciprocity, 
are now disposed to agree to your proposal." 

On April 1, 1891, Mr. Blaine informed the British Minister that the 
Canadian gentlemen were assured of a cordial reception "to discuss 
the commercial relations of the two countries." Various other notes 
passed between the Department of State and the British Minister, in 
all of which the object of the Conference is referred to as of a com- 
mercial character, and in no instance is the subject of the Alaskan 
boundary mentioned. February 1, 1892, Mr. Blaine in a personal 
note to Sir Julian Pauncefote, wrote: 

I have to advise you that, in accordance with your request we will receive the 
gentlemen from Canada who wish to discusts reciprocity between the two coimtries, 
on the 10th of February; it must be kept con.^^tantly in mind that the meeting is to 
be altogether an informal one. 

In view of the conditions under which the conference had been 
assented to by Secretary Blaine, it was conducted in the most informal 
manner, and no joint protocols or minutes were signed. At the com- 
mencement of the Conference Sir .Julian Pauncefote referred to the 
subjects mentioned in his momorandmn of December 22, 1890. Mr. 
Blaine, evidently absorl)ed by the reciprocity question, asked that 
these subjects be restated, and this was done by one of the Canadian 
Cabinet Ministers. The matter of the Alaskan boundary was men- 
tioned, along- with the other subjects, but 1 am quite sure it did not 



THE RECIPEOCITY CONFERENCE OF ]8i)2. 123 

evoke any di.scussioii and it was infoiinally passed over a\ itli the other 
subordinate topics, and the question of commercial reciprocit}' Avas 
taken up, and it consumed the time of the tirst two sessions to the 
exclusion of all other subjects. 

At the opening- of the Conference on the third day the Canadian 
delegates sul)niitted written proposals on the Alaskan boundary, the 
protection of the tisheries, wreckino- and towing-, and for the revival 
of the unratified tisheries treaty of 1888. The proposal as to the 
Alaskan boundary was for reference of the delimitation to some 
impartial authority. Objection was made on the part of the United 
States that the existing dilierence of views w^as not of such a character 
as to call for more than a joint survey and report, which Avould enal)le 
the two Governments to agree upon the fixation of the boundary. 
The discussion was of ver}" brief duration and related mainly to the 
questions which had arisen as to the point where the line crossed 
the Stikine River and the inconvenience occasioned by this existing 
uncertainty. No assertion was hinted at of a British claim to the 
heads of the inlets or of tiny rights on Lynn Canal. When the Con- 
ference convened the next day, I submitted a substitute for the British 
proposal, which was in all respects embodied in the treaty of July 22, 
1892, and this substitute was accepted without o])jection. 

The consideration of the boundary was of the briefest duration, was 
treated on both sides as of slight importance, and an agreement was 
reached without difficulty. Although Mr. Blaine made a full report 
of the Conference to the President and a later one was submitted by 
me, the merest reference was made to the boundary, Mr. Blaine speak- 
ing of it as one of the *' other questions * * * informally discussed 
by the Conference," and the President, in his message comnmnicating 
the results of the Conference to Congress, did not even allude to it, 
(See S. Ex. Doc. Ill, 52nd Cong. 1st Sess. Feb. 21, 1892). 

As a further indication that the more recent claim of Great Britain 
to a boundary line which would cut across the inlets penetrating the 
mainland and place the heads of the inlets within British territory was 
not advanced at that Conference, I refer you to the correspondence on 
tile in the Department of State between Senator Fairbanks and Lord 
Hersehell, the chairmen of the respective delegations of the Joint 
High Commission of 1898. When the British ^Members of that Com- 
mission on the 30th of August 1898 introduced a map of Southeastern 
Alaska with the boundary line traced across the inlets as above 
described, 1 stated that it was the tirst distinct statement of the British 
claim. The only correction of that assertion was that the claim was 
advanced in the instructions given to the British Commissioners on 
the 1st of August 1898. The map referred to as introduced by the 
British Conuuissioners will be found in the Department of State. 
Very respectfully. 

John W. Foster. 



DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE SUBSEQUENT TO THE 
ADJOURNMENT OF THE JOINT HIGH COMMISSION. 

Mr. ViUiers to Mr. Choate. 

Foreign Office, May 13, 1899. 

Your Excellency: At the interview which I had the honour to 
hold with YOU on the 3rd instant, Your Excellency stated, on the 
assumption that for the present at least the ditlerence of view between 
our two Governments concerning- the Alaska lioundary was final and 
could not be adjusted bv direct negotiation, that you were desirous to 
impress on me that there were ten other matters before the Joint 
High Commission upon which agreement did not seem to be out of 
the question, but that the way was absoluteh' blocked by the irrecon- 
cilable divergence of view, which had shown itself in regard to the 
boundary dispute. If an arbitration could be arranged it would be an 
issue very satisfactory to the President, but the views of the Commis- 
sioners as to the conditions on which an arbitration could be set up 
were almost as divergent as their views with respect to the matter 
itself in dispute; and while you would be very glad to see a proposi- 
tion which might have the efiect of referring this controversy to arbi- 
tration you looked with more hope to some arrangement by which the 
Alaska controversy should be separated from the rest and the negotia- 
tions be allowed to go on if possible to agreement on the other ten 
matters leaving the boundary (juestion for subsequent discussion. 

1 replied that generally of course Her Majest3"'s Government were 
very anxious that these diti'erences of opinion l^etween the two coun- 
tries should l)e adjusted, and that the}' would be very glad if any 
means of accelerating- that result could be devised. I thought it pos- 
sible that the Canadian Government would look upon the questioBS 
referred to the Conuiiission as practically indivisible, and would 
shrink from leaving- the Alaska dillicultv, which was the most impor- 
tant and urgent diliiculty, unsettled, while an agreement was come to 
a))out the rest. For it was obvious that if an agreement had appeared 
probal)le in an}' of these negotiations it might have been to a great 
extent because of the hope that by concession on these points the great 
boundary controversy could be brought to a close. 

I promised to ascertain the views of the Colonial Office and of the 
Canadian Government, and the substance of your Plxcellency's com- 
munication Avas accordingly telegraphed to the Governor General of 
Canada, who has replied that his Ministers can sec no reason why the 
Alaska boundary ([uestion should not be referred to arbitration at 
once on the lines of the Treaty for settlement of the dispute with 
Venezuela, and that they are ready to proceed with the other matters 
at issue as soon as an agreement for arbitration has been arrived at. 

Although Her Majesty's Government have been disposed to believe 

124 



CORRESl'ONDKNCK AFTKR ADJOURNMENT. 125 

tlmt the Al:isk;i lioimdiiiT coiil*! hos{ he (Iciilt with in coiiiu'ctioii with 
ii comprohensive iuljiistiiKMit of oiitstiuuliMo- (|iu\sti<nis, they ure (luite 
wiiliiiii-. in view of tlu' (lillicuilics which have pn'sciited themselves, to 
refer "tlie l)()uiKhiry dispute to iiil)itniti()n, and they trust that the 
Tiiited States (Joveriunent on tiieir part will now ai>Tee either to an 
e(|uital)le adjustnient of the matter or to its reference to arbitration 
ueiH'rally on the lines proposed by the liritish Commissioners and 
accepted by both Governments in the case of the (lis[)ute as to the 
boundary of British Guiana. 

I have the honor to be, &{-. 
(For the Manpiess of Salisbury) 

F. H. ViLLIERS. 

His Excellencv The Honoural)le Joseph 11. Ghoate, c^c, cNcc. tScc. 



Lord Sill ls}}tii'i/ to Jf/\ ( 'jKKitr-. 

Immediate.] F\)kei(;x Oefice. Minj 17, 1S99. 

Mv d?:ar Ambassador, Sir, Julian Pauncefote duly reported to me 
the conmmnication which })assed between your Excellency and himself 
respecting- the reference to arl)itration of the Alaska boundary question. 

The result of 3'our negotiations w'as a proposal that, besides the rules 
in the draft treiity drawn up by the British Conmiissioners at Wash- 
i no-ton, provision should be made that in the event of the Tri})unal of 
Arl)iti-ation tindino- that the settlementsof Dyeaand Skagway are situ- 
ated within territory l)eloii.iiing- of riuht to Great Britain, those settle- 
ments shall come within tlu> operation of Rule C, and be and remain 
in the occupation, and within the territory and under th(> jurisdiction 
of the I'nited States. 

1 have the honour to inform your Excellency that Her Majesty's 
Government, after consultation w'ith the Canadian Government, and 
careful consideration, feel unal)le to accept this arrangement. 

They would however be prepared to accept, as a fair and reasonable 
compi'omise. that the addition to the rules should run as follows: — 
•• If Dyea and Skagway are found as the result of the award of the 
Arl)itrators to be within the territory of (ireat Britain. ])oth places 
will be and remain in the occupation and within the territory of the 
rnited States. If Pyramid Harbour is found to be within the terri- 
tory of the United States, it will be and remain within the territory, 
and under the jnrisdiction of Great Britain." 

Mr. Tower, Her Majesty's Ghai-ge (rAtiaires at Washington, has 
been instructed, by telegraph, to mak(> an oHicial connnunication in 
this sense to Mr. Hay. 

1 remain, my dear Ambas-^ador. yours \ cry truly. 

Sa LIS HURT. 

Mr. Choah' to Lord Snl islmri/. 

American Embassy. 

London, Moij LSt/i, ISDO. 
]Mv EoRD, I hiive the honour to acknowledge the receipt, on the 
15th instant, of your Lordship's letter of the IHth. in regard to a dis- 
position of the Alaskan boundary (juestion in sonn^ way which sjiould 

:>66"2e— Ai- 



X26 



CORRESP(»N[)KX<E AFTER AD-K )!' RXMENT 



r(Mn<)\('it :is all ohstaclc to tlic (•i)nij)l('ti()ii of tlic Ial)our of the Joint 
Ilinh Coiiimission on the other (juestion f^ulmiittcd to it. 

1 did not. in our interview of the 3r(l instant, mean to be understood 
as assuming- that the ditt'erenees of view between our two Governments 
concernir^g the Ahiskan boundary could not ))e adjusted by direct neo-o- 
tiations — for I am of opinion tliat in \i('w of the friendly fcclino- now 
prevailino- between the two nations, almost any f|uestion could be so 
settled —and in fact, as I am instructed, the last proposition made by 
the American Commissioners before the adjoui'mnent of the Commis- 
sion, was to remit this im[)ortant (juestion to the two (Toverrnnents for 
further negotiation and di))lomatlc settlement, and to take up the other 
(juestions and fornmlate a treaty agreement respecting tJKMn. which 
proposition was rejected and the Commission adjourned. 

1 was. however, most strenuous in pressing upon your L!)rdship the 
earnest desire of the President that in some way or other this question, 
on which the differences in the Commission were ii'reconcilable. should 
l)c amicably and satisfactorily adjusted so that the Commission could 
reconvene with a reasonable i)r()spect of completing the rest of the work. 

It is now very gratifying to learn that Her Majesty's (xoxei-nment 
is willing, in vi nv of the impracticability of the Alaskan boundary 
question being settled by the (Commission, to I'efer it to arbiti'ation — 
and that the INlinisters of the Governor General of Canada can see no 
objection to this coui'se. I innnediately reported to my Govei'nment. 
by ca!)le, the last two paragraphs of your Lordship's letter which 
stated those facts, and had hoped before replying to receive further 
instructions from AN'ashington on the subject. Init the tem])orary 
absence of the PresidiMit from the Ca})ital ])robat)lv occasioned a little 
delay. 

I did not understand from your letter, that (Mthei' your Lordship or 
the Canadian authorities 1)V ])ro})osing an arl)itration •'genei'ally on 
the lines" of the Venezuela Treaty. Avill insist upon applying rigidly 
to this proposed arbitration, the identical terms of that Treaty, espe- 
cially since the exact proposition was made in the Commission In* the 
P)i'itish Coiumissioners and rejected by ours on grounds which seemed 
to thtnii and to our (government con(dusi\(>. The two })rinci[)al grounds 
of objection were as to the UK^thod of constituting the i)roposed Arbitral 
Tribunal, and the provision as to the eti'ect of actual settlement upon 
the rights t>f the parties, 'ilie American Conuuissioners were of the 
o])inion that an Ai'bitral Tribunal, consisting of an e(]ual numloer of 
jurists a])pointed by each side, and whoshoukUlecide i)V a majority vote, 
somewhat similar to the Arbitral Tribunal provided for in the Gen- 
eral Arbitration Treaty of .January 11, 181>7, between the two Govern- 
ments would l)e a most competent Tribunal to dispose of such a ques- 
tion as is here involved, and would be far more satisfactory than such 
a oiu> as that constituted by the A'enezuela Treaty; and that the 
United States should not he called upon to submit to any arbitration, 
its right to hold the territory u]:)on which under its authoi'ity cities 
and towns have b(>en built and valual)le interests and in(histi'i(>s estab- 
lished without protest ()i'ol)jection from eithei" Her Majesty's (tovern- 
ment or the Canadian authorities. 

On these two points the views of the British and American Commis- 
sioners appear to have been irreconcilable, and the hope that by 
nuitual concessions we may be able to agrin^ upon terms of arbitration 
nuitually satisfactory will be most gratifying to the President. 



OF JOINT llKiH (OM.MlssloX. 127 

Tlic altenuitive suogostioM in your letter of an "(Mjiiitiible adjust- 
ment of tlie matter/' meaning I assume, of the boundary itself, has 
not yet 1)een the suhjeet of instructions to me. hut you may rest 
assured that it will not t)e overlooked hy the Secretary of State. 

On hearing from him I shall t;d-;e tlic liherty of asking for -i 
further inter\ie\v. 

I ha\'e the honour to he. cVic., 

JosKiMi II. C'hoate. 

The Most Honourable 

The ]\Iarqii^ of Satjsbi'ky. K. (i.. ilCic.. c^c. v.<;c. 



J//'. ( 'h(>((tr to Lord ^(il islniri/. 

Amfkican Embassy, London. Mmaj I'j, 16V0. 

My I) far Lord Salisbury: After my reply of yesterday to your 
Lordship's note of the loth, received on the l.")th, had been prepared; 
1 received 3'our Lordship's letter of the ITth which caused mp much 
disappointment and regret: because it sets at naught the whole nego- 
tiation had between Sir Julian Pauncefote and myself with the full 
approval, as I had supposed, of your Lordship, and puts' an entirely 
new aspect upon the situation. Let me say in passing that the result 
of those negotiations was not understood between Sir .Julian and myself 
to be a proposal on either side, l)ut rather a suggestion or what we 
could fairly recommend to our respective (Tovernments. and which, if 
I should find acceptal)le to my Government, would eventuate in a 
proposal from that of Her Majesty. 

Your Lordship's letter does not disclose the grounds or reasons upon 
which the new proposition is based — that if Pyramid Har})or is found 
to l)e within the territory of the I'nited States, it should be aiul remain 
within the territory and under the jurisdiction of (ireat Britain. 

The proposition that l)ye;i and Skagway are found, as the result of 
the award of the arliitrators. to be within territory belonging of right 
to (ireat Britain, they should come within the operation of Kule C, 
and be and remain in the occupation and within the territory and 
under the jurisdiction of the I'nited States, was based upon the obvious 
and impregnable ground that those settlements had l)een tiuilt and 
established under the authority and within the jurisdiction of the 
United States, and valuable interests created there without a word of 
protest or objection from either the British or Canadian (Jovei'nment, 
and to territory to which no adverse claim had bet'u presented l)v 
either of them to the I'nited States. ])rior at least to th(> signature of 
the Protocol of May, IMIS. by which the High Joint C'ounnission was 
created. 

1 am not. however, aware that at Pyramid Harbor any town has 
))een built or settlement established by either British oi- Canadian 
subjects, or any interests or industries created, the protection of which 
would atiord any reason, in justice or eciuity why that place, if found 
to be within the' territory of the Tnited States, should be set over to 
(treat Britain. 

I am thei'eforc^ unable to see any correlation or i'eci])rocity in these 
two ])ropositions. and at a loss to understand tin* r(>asons for the new 
proposition contained in your letter — l)ut ha\-e transmitted its exact 



128 CORKKSPONDP^NCE AFTKH ADJOURNMENT 

terms by cable to my (iovonimcnt and shall await its instructions with 
groat int(M'(>st and somi^ solicitude. 

With the fullest confidence in your Lordship's desire for an amicable 
and nmtually-satisfactory adjustment of this ditHcult cjuestion, 1 shall 
hope, after further instructions, which 1 await, to resume the consid- 
eration of it with you personally. 

Yours very truly, frosEi'ii H. C'iioatk. 

The Most Honourable 

The Marquis of Salisbury, K. G., Sa-., t<:c., <&v. 



LiOiuJ Sdl/shiiri/ to Jfi\ Cliodte. 

FoREioN Office, Lonchnu 'f'l^y 1^^ -, ISOO. 

Your Excellency, The correspondence which has passed between 
the United States Governmeut and that of Her Majesty, as well as the 
negotiations and other diplomatic intercourse which have taken place 
both here and at Washington, have left on the minds of Her Majesty's 
Ministers a strong impression that no eft'ective progress will be made 
in coming to an agreement upon the subjects which divide the two 
countries without the assistance of arbitration. This appears to be 
especially the case with respect to the Alaska boundary. The diti'er- 
ent signitication which the two Governments attach to the language of 
the Treaty of 18:^5 is not of a character which appears likely to be 
adjusted l)y the method of explanation or argument on the two sides. 
Some of the ablest men belonging to both nations have now for several 
months devoted the utmost erudition and acumen to this discussion, but 
the attainnuMit of an agreement seems to be no nearer than when the 
comnumications began. Her Majesty's Govermuent feel that no sat- 
isfactory agreenuMit l)etween the two countries ean be arrived at until 
the difference with respect to the Alaska Ijoundarv has been adjusted, 
and that this adjustment can only be attained by the process of 
arbitration. 

Much of course will depend upon the manner in which the subject 
of controversy is presented to the tritninal selected for arbitration, 
and upon the conditions by which the arbitrators' decisions are shaped 
and limited. Upon this mattersome])reliminarv discussion hasalri^ady 
taken ]ilace l)etween the two Governments: but no formal ex])r(\ssion 
of opinion on either side in this respect, has as yet been arrived at. In 
order to ascertain whether any formal ditference exists between them 
in this respect, and to pave the way if ])ossible for an ultimate agree- 
ment, I have, on behalf of Her Majesty, to })ropose to Your Excel- 
lency that the Treaty of Arbitration adopted between this country and 
Venezuela, with the assent and largely at the instance of the United 
States, shall be applied to the determination of the Alaska boundaiy 
which is now undei' discussion. That treaty is now receiving its appli- 
cation at Paris, and cUiring the thi'ee years which have elapscnl since 
its conclusion, no <iuestion as to its fairness or apj)licability has arisen 
between tlie contracting parties. ] am not able to find in its terms 
anything which is inapplical)le, or which would be inconsistent with 
an e(|uitable and conclusive solution of the Alaska controversy. It is 
possible that in some respects its details may be improved, but such as 
they are they appear to Her Majesty's Government to be adequate for 



OF JOINT IIKJII roMMissiox. 129 

tho ]iuvpose which we lia\o in hand: and I have to n'(|iu'st that Your 
ExccUiMicy Avill hiy hcfore tlie Pi'csich'nt the i^roposal of Her Majcsty'.s 
(to\ cnmu'iit that the W'lu'ziU'hi tivaty, as it stands, shall he a})i)lit'dto 
the dctt'iinination of the Alaska houndaiy hetween the I)t)niinion of 
Canada and tho I iiitod States. 

I have the honor to l)e. c^c. 

Salisbury. 
His Excellencv The Hon. Joseimi H. Ciioatk. &c.. &c.. &c. 



J//'. ('/io(/fr i(> Loi'il S(il /shiirij. 

AMf:KicAN Emiussy, .l'/y"-s/ .9?'//. ]S99. 

Mv I)p:ar Lord Salisbury, To aid your Lordshi]) in the considera- 
tion whieli you may <iive to the .subject of our protracted conversation 
on \\'ednesday last. I have the honour to submit in writing the sub- 
stance of what 1 undertook to say as to the reasons which prevent the 
President from assentino- to the proposal, that the Venezuela Treaty, 
as it stands, shall be applied to the determination of the Alaska Bound- 
ary — and in respect to which he desires an exchange of views before 
formally responding to your Lordship's proposal contained in your 
note of July 1st ultimo. 

As the ciuestion of the organization of the proposed Arbitral Com- 
mission is subordinate to that concerning the sul)ject matter to l)ear])i- 
trated, and the terms and conditions on which its action is limited, and 
ought easily to be agreed upon when the latter are once settled. I con- 
fined what I had to say to some of the reasons which, in the President's 
judgnuMit. make the terms of the Venezuela Treaty, as it stands, wholh' 
ina})i)lical)le to the ]iresent sul)ject of conti'oversy. in which the issues 
invol\'ed are radically ditferent. 

This is entirely unlike the controversy with Venezuela — in that it 
is a new question, raised for the first time after the Joint High Com- 
mission had been agreed upon; up to which dat«^ the claim had never 
been put forward, either l)y Creat Britain or Canada, which it is now 
asked shall l)e sul)mitted to arbitration. Whereas, in the case of 
Venezuela, the controversy originated a century and a half ago. and 
had been, in its entirety, a subject of dispute and protest for sixty 
years. 

The coast line of the main-land (the //v/V/v- of the Treaty), including 
the inlets, had })een in the possession or under the control of Kussia 
and the Cuited States since the Tr(>aty betweiMi Kussia and (Jreat 
Britain in 1825 — and the settlements on the inlets. es]n'cially those 
al)out the head of the Lynn Canal, have been made with the authority 
and under the jurisdiction of the CnitiHl States, without any protest 
or claim of territorial ownership on the part of (Jreat Britain — 
whereas, in the Venezuela case, the British occupation and settlements 
involved were upon the teiritory clainied by \'en(vuela. and against 
the constant protest of \'enezuela: thus constituting, as A'enezuela 
alleges, a series of advancing encroachments upon w hat that country 
claimed to ])e her territory. 

In support of the proposition that, from the Treaty of iS'i."). to the 
cession to the Cniteil States, in is^u. the Hu>siiin (lOViM'nmcnt steadily 
maintiiincd its claim to a strip of territory, thiity milo in w idth. on 



180 CORRESPONDENCK AFTER ADJOURNMENT 

the uuiiiihiiul of the C'oiitiiuMit. bc^'iniiiii^- ut .■")4 4<»' and t'xtoii(liii<i' itoi-tli 
west tiround all the inlets and interior waters, to the 141st de^-ree of 
West lonoitiide, I called attention to the maps issued by the Russian 
Government, to its lease or license, contained in the Treat\' with the 
I'nited States of 1824, for the citizens of the latter to frequent with 
their ships, for ten years, '"the interior seas, g'ulfs, harbors and creeks 
u])on the coast," for the purpose of tisliinoand tradiiio- with the natives; 
and to Russia's refusal in 1S35. to renew the ])vivile<i'es. 

During the wlioh* piu'iod of Russia's occu})ation of this strip of ter- 
ritory, (heat Britain made no claim tt) it. and entered no protest: on 
the contrary, there were acts on her part of express recognition of the 
claim of Russia. By the Treaty of 1825, she took from Russia the 
same privileges for British subjects to frequent the same inland se'as, 
gulfs, hai'bors and creeks, for ten 3'ear8, as had been granted to Ameri- 
can citizens ])y the Treat}' of 1825, and, p.fter the expiration of the ten 
years' j)rivileg(>s, Ik'itish subjects and vessels were excluded from these 
iut(n'ior waters; and the British Government acquiesced in this with- 
out a protest. 

In the same connection. I called attention to the case of the 
••Dryad"" — where the British (xovernment presented and pressed upon 
the Russian Government a claim of the Hudson's Bay Couipany. for 
damages sustained l)y the detention of the vessel, destined for some 
point on the Stikine River, which resulted in the Hudson's Bay Com- 
pany taking, in 18;3i), a lease from the Russian American Company 
(these two companies representing their respective GovernnuMits in 
the control of the country along the north-west coast) of the strip of 
territory, or L'lxh'i'c of the Treaty for ten years, in consideration of 
the annual rent and the extinction of the claim. This lease was made 
with the authority and approval of the two Governments. The Hud- 
son's Bay Company entered and occupied under it for the term of the 
lease, and for an extension of another term; and then surrendered 
possession, without objection or protest from any one. 

I also called your Lordship's attention to the special Parliamentary 
emjuiry into this transaction, in 1857, and to the map submitted to 
the Conuuittee. and to the testimony of the (Tovernor of the Hudson's 
Bay Company, showing the strip jeasi^d to hav(» been thirty miles in 
width and to extend around the lunid of all the inlets, including the 
Lyiui CVmal. 

in tlie opinion of the President, the action of the two Governments 
during Russia's occupation of the strip of territory now^ in controversy, 
makes a wholly different condition of affairs from that between Great 
Britain and Venezuela— and the diti'erence has been maintained and 
made more distinct since the cession l)y Russia to the United States. 

In supj)ort of this I called your Loixlship's attention to the map pre- 
pared and published by the United States in 18t)7, which delimited the 
boundary — and which traced the limits of the strip on the mainland, 
in accordance with tiie uniform chiim which Russia iiad made. Not 
oidy was no protest made against this m-ap l)y the British (iovern- 
ment, but the British map publishers and the Canadian Government 
adopted the same boundary line in their publications. And, in accord- 
ance with this delimitation, the United States have exercised, as I 
stated to your Lordship, acts of sovereignty — such as control of Indian 
trib(>s. estal)lishin<Mit of post offices and schools, and the policeing of 
the wat(M-s of the inlets by the Government vessels, and the enforce- 
ment of revenue and other Federal laws. 



OF JOINT PIK^H COMMISSION. 181 

I calU'cl your Lord.shin's uttriitioii to tlir I'uct tli;it. up to ii \(m-\' 
r'ecent p«M"iod. the bouiularv lino has only twice hcoii the suhjcct of 
oones])ondence or discussion l)et\veen our two (Tovernments- -Hrst, in 
1STH-T4. when there was a movement for ha\ in*i- the ])oundary line 
marked l»y a Connnission of scientific experts; and it was then under- 
stood that the houndary line crossed the Kiver Skoot. Stikinc. Taku, 
Islecat and C'hiicat at some place al)ove the point where they respc^c- 
tiv(dy empty into the inh^ts of the ocean: and. shortly after that, when 
there was some (piestion as to where tiie hounchiry crossed the Stikine. 

1 referred incidentally to the case of the Peter Martin, in IsTT. the 
coriespondence in respect to which appears in "Foreion Relations of 
the United States, 1S7T" pp. ^(UJ-i^Tl — and to the provisional a^'ree- 
ment for Customs purposes, in 1878, the correspondence in respect to 
which appears in '"Foreio-n Relations of the Tnited States, 18T8" pp. 
8;^)!*-;')-lrt!-7. Tlu^ slio-ht conflict of jurisdiction in the vicinity of Lake 
Lindeman. shortly after the discovery of o-oid in the Yukon District, 
seems to have but little bearino-, as it related to territory lietween 
Lake Lindennm and the ^^'hite Pass. 

It appears clearly that not until after the .loint High Connnission 
was created, ooth ]\Iay, 18H8. did either (Jreat Britain or Canada ever 
advance the claim to an}^ portion of territory lying' adjacent to the 
inlets of the ocean, nor to the waters thereof: nor have they objected 
to the occupation of the same by the (irovernment of the United States 
or its citizens — and at no time has any part of the territory so lately 
put in disput(\ l)een held or occupied bv Canadian or British Author- 
ities. 

The towns. settliMnents and industries about the head of Lymi Canal 
and the other inlets embraced in this strip of territory, having been 
established under these circumstances — a wholly ditferent situation has 
been created in regard to them from that inv(jlved in the Venezuela 
case: so utterly different that the Government of the United States 
would feel that it was not properly guarding the rights of its citizens, 
if it should consent to put these settlements in peril, by applying to 
them the terms of the Venezuela Treaty, which was designed for a 
wholly different state of affairs: nor would the Pr(\sident feel justified 
in submitting the (|uestlons involved to any arliitration. uidess our 
settlements. — made in good faith before this new claim was piesented 
on the part of Canada, — were expressly exempted from its ojjeration. 

I also called your Lordship's attention to a material difference 
between the (piestions to be decided by the two trilnuials — in the one 
case, the disputed interpretation of a treaty detiiiition of a boundary 
line, in a treaty made seventy-four years ago. and remaining undis- 
puted through the long period of the Russian occujiancv and adminis 
tration of the //.svV/y- and thiough neai'ly all the time that the territory 
has been held l>y the United Stat(\s under the cession fi'om Russia, and 
only very lat(dy brought in ([uestion. In tliis cas(> the int(M'))retation 
is to be made in the light of ])rior and subseciuent historical facts of 
occuj)ation. administration and recognition, and of the acts and omis- 
sions of the parties concerned. Hei'e while the question of actutil 
settlements and administration is collateral to the main subject of 
arbitration — and. being of great importance, is rightly to be guarded 
by the distinct understandinii- suggested by the President — it is not. as 
the \'enezula case, the essentiid ])oitit directly at is.»ut>. In the oth<>r 
case, the controvei'sy rested, not ui)on the interpretation of any such 



132 COKKIOSl'UNDENCK AFTER ADJOURNMENT 

treaty detiiiitioii of the bouiularv lino, l)iit cssoiitially upon the his- 
torical facets of occupancy and possession, out of which the Arl)itrators 
were to determine tlic })oun(lary line in confonnity to the rules pre- 
scribed to tluMU. 

Your Loi-dship's proposal for an arbitration will be entertained by 
the President with that earnest consideration which its iiu])()rtance, 
and the hi_<ih source from which it conies, deserves, — and having- thus 
laid l)efore your Lordship reasons for his judg-nient, that the two cases 
are radically dirt'erent. and the terms of the Venezuela Treaty, as it 
stands, are utterly inapplicable to the present case, he thinks it would 
be wise, at this stage of the neeoti'ition, to have a comparison of 
views — and would be much onititied if your Lordship would oive your 
views in return upon the matter now presented, and would conmumi- 
cate the ^'rounds upon which your Lordship bases the opinion that 
"there is nothine- in the Venezuela 'i'reaty which is inap})licable, or 
which would b(^ inconsistent with an e(|uitat)le solution of the Alaskan 
controversy." 

When the contacting views of the parties are thus disclosed they 
mav perhaps be reconciled or adjusted by mutual concessions- -and so 
may the way be paved for an ultimate aereement. 
I remain. c*ce., 

Joseph H. Choate. 

The ^lost Honoura))le The Marquis of Salisbury, K. G. 



Loftl S(i] /.sJinj'ij to J//\ ToiCtJ^ C7a(/yt'. 
[Confidential.] 

No. 213.] FoKEKiN Office, Ocfoher I4. 1899. 

Sir: In my despatch No. 182 of the 2d |sic] August I informed you 
of a communication made to me l)v the I'liited States Ambassador 
stating the grounds upon which the President felt himself unable to 
assent to my proposal for the reference of the Alaska boundary ques- 
tion to arbitration on the terms adopted in the treaty of the 2d Febru- 
ary, ISHT, between Great Britain and Venezuela. 

Mr. Choate said, in conclusion, that h<^ was instructed to ex])ress the 
opinion of the President that it would l)e wise at this stage of the 
negotiation to have a comparison of views, and to state that he would 
be much giatihed if I woukl give my views in return upon th(^ matter 
presented and couuuunicate the grounds upon whidi tier Majesty's 
Government base tluMr opinion that "there is nothing in the Ven- 
ezuelan treaty which is ina))plicabl(\ or which would be inconsistent 
with an e(|uitable solution of the Alaska controversy."" 

I would observe at the outset that there appears to be some misap- 
prehension on the yjai't of the United States Government as to the 
nature and scope of the pi'oposal submitted to His Lxc(dlency. who 
has treated it as if it oidy ai)plied to the determination of the boundary 
in the neighborhood of the Lynn (anal, instead of to the whole fron- 
tier of the //".y/V'/v of coast defined in the Hid and IVth Artides of the 
treaty of 182."). 

No doubt it is in regard to that p;irt of the boundary that the widest 
divergence of views ha§ arisen between the tvro Governments, but it 



OF JOINT mon coM.Missrox. 133 

only ihhhIs a reference t« the maps which piii'port to mark the houiulary 
a.s claimed by the respective Governments to show that the ditterence 
is l)y no means contined to the region of the Lynn Canal, bnt extends 
throuiiiiout the whole lenuth of the strip from I*ortland Channel to 
Mount St. Klias. 

The events of the last two or thrt'e years arisin*:' out of the Yukon 
oold (liseovinMes have <ii\ en exceptional ]:)r()minenee and importance to 
that })art of the boundary, l)ut it will hardly Ix^ maintained that pi'ior 
to these events there was any reason why. while the whole line was 
undetermined, and its settlement was not r(>oarded on either side as a 
matter of pressino- importance, special attention should have l)een 
devoted b}' Her Majesty's Government to that ]iarticular reoion. 

It is necessary to bear this in mind In considering- the various reasons 
put forward by the I'liitinl States Government, on account of which 
they claim to distinguish the pr(\sent dispute from that reecMitly dis- 
cussed liefore the Ti'ibunal of Arbiti-ation at Paris. 

The general etieet of thc^ Cnited States contention is that the claim 
put forward by Her Majesty's GovernuuMit that the boundary line 
should cross the L^Min Canal in the neighborhood of Berner's Hay, 
following the general line of the coast range of mountains indicated by 
the treaty as the position of the l)oundary, is a new one first put for 
ward after the Joint High Commission had been created, and that 
before then Her Majesty's Government bad made no claim to the head 
waters of the canal, or any i)rotest against ^■ari()us acts on the part of 
Kussia and th(^ United States inconsistent with tiiat claim, and that the 
United States (JovenuntMit ai'c therefore justified in refusing to allow 
the (juestion of the i)ossession of these waters to be adjudicated u})on 
by an independent tribunal. 

I wish to point out in the first place that there has been but little 
discussion of the boundary question between the two Governments, 
but whenever it has been referred to it has been on the admitted basis 
that the whole line was undetermined, and that the interpretation of 
the l)oundary articles of the treaty was entirely an open question as to 
which each (iovernment was free to urge its own views. 

This was the view acce])ted l)y President (irant in his annual mes- 
sage to Congress of the 2d DeciMuln'r. 1^72. and l)y the late Secretary 
Bayard in his despatch to Mr. Phelps of the 2(ith November. 1SS8. and, 
as w^as pointed out in that despatch, no question concerning- the true 
location of the line stipulated in the treaty bad ever arisen between 
Great Britain and Kussia ])rior to the cession of Alaska to the Ignited 
States. The only value of th(> region during that i)eriod lay in the 
fur trade, and dui'ing the tirst ten years after IS^;") that trade was 
thrown opiMi on (M(ual tei-ms to the subjiM-ts and citizens of (Jri^at Bi'it- 
ain. Russia, and the Ignited States l)y Articl(> \U of the treaty between 
Great Britain and Kussia of [s-2:>. and Article IV of the treaty of l.s-_'4 
between the I'nited States and Kussia, and lud'ore the expiry of the 
ten years the negotiations between the Hudson's Bay Comi)any and 
the Kussian AnuM'ican Company which resulted in the lease to the 
former of the trade of the whole of the //.svV/v southward and eastward 
of a line joining Cape Spencer and Mount Fairweather had l)een initi- 
ated. By that lease tlu^ exclusive i-ight of trade and commtM'ce in 
the //s/r/v outside th(^ line mentioned, covering practically the whole 
territory the l)oundarv of which is in dispute. Ix'came vested in the 
com})any which enjoyed a simiiai" mono})oly in the territoiw on the 



18-1 CORRESPONDENC?: AITKR ADJOURNMENT 

British side of the frontier, wiicrcxcr it iiiiiilit l)c. and. as it was a 
niattcr of iiKliHoronco to it wiii-thcr it (l('i'i\'('(l its rights from its Brit- 
ish charter or its Kussian h'Hse. no (picstion as to the true hx-ation of 
the line eould arise. The l(>ase, thougli originally for ten years only, 
was renewed from time to time and terminated only on the date when 
Alaska was ceded to the I'nited States. 

When. subse(}uently to that cession, the gold disco\ eiies in the Cas- 
siar district of British Columbia, to which the most convenient access 
lay through the Stikine Kiver trav(>rsing the llsiere. rendered it desir- 
al)le to locate the boundary in that region, the discussion l)etween the 
two Cxovernments was entiridy eontined to the (juestion of a joint sur- 
vey, an indispensable preliminary to any attempt to Hx the boundary, 
and never touched on the inter[)retation of the treaty. Indetnl, in the 
complete alVscMice of top()grai)hical information as to the country, it 
was ol)viously impossible to discuss that question, and it was tacitly 
avoided by both sides. Even when later Mr. Secretary Fish threw^ 
out the suggestion referred to by Mr. Choate that the points where 
the boundtiry crosses certain rivers might be surveyed with a view to 
a partial delimitation, lie declared that it was doubtful whether Con- 
gress would vote the money necessary for the purpose, doubts wdiich 
were speedily verified by the action of that body, and it can sciircely 
be a matter of surprise that a suggestion mad(^ in such circumstances 
failed to receive ci'itical examination at the' hands of the British or 
nominion (Tovernuients, and that no attempt was made to initiate a 
discussion as to the interpretation of the treaty which, in the absence 
of a survey, must have been of a purely academic nature. 

The case of Peter Martin in 1877, to which Mr. Choate also refers, 
does not appear to have any bearing on the matter, as it turned on 
the (juestion of his unauthorized conveyance as a prisoner through 
United States territory, and Her Majesty's Ciovernment have never 
questioninl the right of the United States (TO\ernment to territory at 
th(^ mouth of the Stikine Kivei-, though the ([uestion how far iidand 
that territory extends remains in dispute. 

Mr. Choate made no reference to the correspondence initiated by the 
late Mr. Bayard in his note to Mr. Phelps of the 20th November, iSSo, 
which has already been mentioned. That note made no claim that the 
interpretation of the treaty as r(\gards any i)articular part of the 
boundary line was no longer ojxmi. and the Earl of Iddesleigh, in his 
note to Mr. IMielps of the jJ7th August, lSS(i, inclosing copy of the 
map of the Dominion of Canada, geologically colored, for which Mr. 
Phelps had asked, and on which a line was shown sepai'ating the 
//.svVw- from Canadian teri-itory, stated clearly the attitude of Iler Maj- 
esty's (Jovernment in regai'd to the position of tli<' disputed boundary 
in the following words: — 

In forwarding to you a copy of tlie map in que.^^tion, J iiavc the honor to invite 
your attention to the faet that the Alaska boundary line s^hown thereon is merely an 
indication of tlie otrnrrcnee of such a dividing'' lini' somewhere in tiiat region. It 
will, of course, Ite readily uuderstood that no weijiht could attach to the nia]i loca- 
ti(jn of the line now noticed, inasmuch as the convention between Great Britain and 
l\ussia of the 28th Fel)ruary, 1825, whii-h defines the line, makes its location depend 
on alternative circumstances, the occurrence or the nonoccurrence, of mountains, 
and, as is well known to all concerned, the country has never been topographically 
surveyed, l.'er .Majesty's (Tovernment therefore feel that they are bound distinctly 
to disavow the recognition of the correctness of the line shown, on the edition of the 
map in (|uestion forwarded herewith, as the boundary line between the Province of 
British Columbia and Alaska. 



(»F JOINT IIICH COMMISSION. 185 

The riiitcd States ( JoNcniiuciit took no ('Xf('|)ti()ii to this (Icclaratioii. 
which was t'oUowcd latci- by the statt'iiUMit in the iiHMiioiaiicUiiii oivcn 
to Ml-, liayard l)y Sir L. SackvilK- West on the 1.4th Scptcinlicr, 1SS7, 
as to tht> actit)!! of Lieut(Miant Schwatka (hiring- his ri'connaissunce of 
18S8 in i)iir|«)rtinu- to tix Perrier's Pass at thc^ head of the Lynn Canal 
as a point on the l>oun(hirv. It was there stated that — 

Altlinui;li Her Majesty's (iuvermiieiit liave atrreeil in i>riii(ij)le tn take jtart in a 
pivliniiiiary investigation (if the Alaska lidundary (lUcstiun, they are nut ]irei>are(l to 
a<lniit that the jioints referred to by iJtnitenant Schwatka in any way tix where the 
line slmniil lie drawn. It is not sonjrlit to raise any discnssion at the present moment 
in reiranl to the jiosition of the bonndary between Alaska and IJritisii Colundiia; but 
in order that it may not be prejudiced hereafter by absence of remark on the points 
alluded to above, Her Majesty's Government have thought it ex]ie<lient to call the 
attention of the United States (lovernment to the foregoing observations. 

Shortly after in the informal discussion of the boundary question 
between Dr. Dawson on the yjart of Her Majesty's Government and 
Dr. Dall on the ])art of the United States Government, durino- the 
sittinos of the .Joint Hig-h Connnission of 1888. the former made it 
distinctly clear that Her ^lajesty's Go\ermnent claimed that the 
boiuidary should, in accordance with the terms of the treaty, be drawn 
alono" the siunmits of the coast ranoe, crossinoaJI narrow waters which 
were of such width as to be within territori;il jurisdiction. 

When the conference between the British deleoates and the late Mr. 
Secretary Blaine was held in February 189:^. the views of Her 
]\hijestv's Government as to the boundary were fully stated, and it 
was proposed on the part of the British representatives '' that a 
reference to some impartial authority be made by Great Britain and 
the l'nit(Hl States for tiie pur])ose of ascertaining- and detiding- tinally 
the true l)oundiirv, regard being had to the treaties relating to the 
.sul)iect and likewise to the case which may ))e presented by either 
Government, and to the testimony which may be adduced as to the 
physical features of that country,-' etc. 

The representatives of the United States, Mr. Blaine and (ieneral 
Foster, considered that ii. was premature to provide for a reference to 
arbitration until a survey had been made, and the two Governments 
had had an opportunity of considering and discussing the question in 
the light of the facts revealed by that survey, and they handed in a 
])roi)osal which was accepted and emlsodied with slight verl)al amend- 
ments in Article I of the treaty of the :>i!d Jidy, 18!»2. That article 
provided for a coinciilent or joint survt\v '" with a view to the ascer- 
tainment of the facts and data necessary to the permanent delimitation 
of said lioundarv line in accordance with the si)irit and intent of the 
existing treaties in regard to it between Great Britain and Russia and 
])etween the United States and Ru.ssia," and further, that *' the high 
contracting parties agree that, as soon as practicable after the report 
or reports of the connnissions shall have l)een received, they will 
proceed to consider and estal>lish the boundary line in question." 

It is clear from this that the whole question of the interpretation 
and application of the treaty was. by common consent, left over for 
discussion, after the couqiletion of the survey in the light of the facts 
which it disclosed, and it might fairlV^ be argued from the express 
terms of the convention that l)oth (ioveriunents had estop])ed them- 
selves from contending that the boundary shoidd be run otherwise 
than in accordance with the " spirit and intent" of the existing" treaties 



18() ('()KKKS1>()XDEN(^K AFTKK ADJOURNMENT 

in ret>ard to it ln'twoen (irc;it liiituiii uiul Russia and between the 
United States and Uiissia. 

It is evident in any case that, at any rate', in 1S!)2. neither (iovern- 
nient ehiinied to have an}' rights in tiie disputed ten'itory arisino- out 
of ])()ssession. occupation, or ])()litical control. Nor does it appear 
tiiat any sucii claims were preferred on the part of tiie Tnited States 
until the ine(»tinos of the rloint lliyh Comniission. 

The elal»orate series of nia})s on which the results of the joint sur- 
vey were embodied were not received by Her Majesty's (lovernment 
until ]\Iarch IbDS, but in the meantime Her Majesty's Government, 
realizinii' the improbability of a settlement being- reached by diplo- 
matic discussion, as contemplated by the convention of I8O1J, and the 
need of an early settlemiMit, owing to the new conditions created by 
the Yukon gold discoveries, had instructed Sir fJ. Pauncefote to pi'o- 
pose to the Tnited States (Tovernment a reference of the (juestion to 
three jurists of high standing, one nominated l)v each of the two 
l\)wers, and the third by an independent power, and that this com- 
mission should })roceed at once to delimit the l)oundai'v at the heads of 
the inlets through which the traffic for the Yukon entered, principally 
at the head of the Lynn Canal. 

The proposal was made by Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Sherman on the 
23d February, 1898, and in making it he specitically alluded to the 
divergence of views revealed by the informal discussion which took 
place in 188,s. On the '2d ]\larch he reported to me that the United 
States (xovernment were anxious for a provisional boundary, the 
rights of both parties being reserved pending a final settlement, but 
were unwilling to proceed with a new convention providing for ar])i- 
tration until diplomatic discussion had failed to secure a settlement. 

A proposal for a provisional boundary was made b}- Sir J. Paunce- 
fote on the ISth April in a memorandum in which he stated that — 

In view of the wide divergence of views existing on the subject of the Aiaska- 
Canadian boundary, tlie Dominion (Tovernnient fear that the suggestion to proceed 
with tile demarcation under the convention of 1892 would lead to no result. They 
are, however, prepared to agree that a provisional line should be tixed without preju- 
dice to the claims of cither party at the watershed of thetirst sunuuit north of Dyea. 
8ucli a provisional boiuidary would be at a distance of considerably more than 10 
leagues from the coast. 

In answering this memorandum, on the i)th May, Mr. Day stated: 

In consenting to the tem])orary marking of the boundary line in the method just 
indicated, this (Government desires it to be distinctly understood, on the part of 
])oth (iovernments, that this arrangement is not to be construed as affecting in any 
manner rights under existing treaties for the ultiinatc consideration and cstal)lish- 
ment of the boundary line in question. 

AA'hen, th(M'efore, the Joint High Uonunission nu^t in Ai;gust 18!»8 
to discuss the question, it was clearly understood on both sides that 
the line was to be determined "in accordance with the spirit and 
intent" of the treaty, without restriction, the rights of )K)th ])arties 
having been fully and distinctly reserved whenever any (luestion of 
the interpretation or a])plication of th{^ treaty was discusstnl. and the 
fact of such reservation expressly recognized on ])oth sides. 

It has already l)een fully explained why no ([uestion as to the inter- 
pretation of the treaty was raised by either party tuitil I88r), and that 
on the first occasion when the discussion of the matter was approached, 
Her Majesty's Ciovermnent gave distinct notice that they entirely dis- 



OF JOINT IlKJII COMMISSION. 187 

avowed the convctne.s.s of the line shown on the nuips to which the 
United States (loveriuneiit appealech 

In view of these facts. Her Majestv's Gov cnnncnt are fairly cntith'd 
to ehiini tliat as a s(>ttUMU(Mit of the (luestion (an not he reached dii)h3- 
niatically. the interpretation of the treaty and its application to the 
facts ascertained hy the survey siioidd he submitted unreservedly to 
an impartial tril»unal. without any such i-estrictions as were contained 
in the \'enezuelan treaty, anil in proposino- to allow, as provided by 
that instrument, continuous adverse possession for tifty years, if such 
can be proved, to override treaty lioht. they have made a distinct 
conces!>;ion to the United States. 

They do not, of course, admit that there has })cen any such adverse 
poss(\ssion. hy way either of exercise of jurisdiction or of political 
control, and if the United States citizens have settled recently at the 
head of the Lynn Uanal. they have done so in the full knowledge, as 
oiven in the (h)cum(Mits inclosed in President Cleveland's messa<j;e to 
Conoress of the 2d March, ISSO, that they were settling- in disputed 
territory, and Her Ahijesty's (lovernment are unal)le to see any reason 
why such settlement shouhl receive further or greater recognition 
and protection than the United States (iovernment considered should 
))e accorded to British sul)jects who had settled in the area in dispute 
between this country and Venezuela. 

It is not necessai'v to discuss in detail each of the various points 
advanced in Mr. Choate's comnmnication in favor of the United States 
intin-pretation of the treaty. Facts and arguments of equal cogency 
can be advanced on the other side by Her Majesty's (iovernment. and 
they are all points which can be sul>nntted to an arbitration tril»unal 
under the rules laid down in the Venezuelan treaty, and unless there 
are other facts and circumstances upon which the United States Gov- 
ernment rely, but which might be excluded from the consideration of 
the tribunal bv these rules, Mr. Choate has not, so far as can l)e seen, 
advanced any reason to warrant Her Majesty's (iovernment in depart- 
ing from tiie view expressed in my note of the 1st July, that there is 
nothing in the terms of the Venezuelan treaty '"wiiich is inapplicable 
or which would be inconsistent with an e(|uital)le solution of tht^ 
Alaskan controvei'sy." 

The (juestion inunediately under discussion is whether or not th-e 
dispute as to the bounchuy should be referred to arbitration, and it is 
difttcult to understand why the length of time during which the rival 
claims to disputed teri'itory have been matters of controversy should 
form an eli'ment to be taken into consideration in that connection. If 
it be desirable, on other grounds, to employ the assistance of an 
impartial tribunal as the best means of terminating the dispute, the 
length of the pei'iod of })revious controversy a|)i)(>ars to l)e iunnaterial. 

The exercis(> of the rights of sovereignty witiiin the anni in disjnite 
by control of the Indian tril)es and estai)lishment of administrative 
machinei-y therein was. as the United States Ciovernment are aware, 
one of the principal grounds ])ut forw'ard by Great Britain in suppoit 
of her right to the territory claimed by Venezuela, and such grounds, 
if put forward by the United States Govermnent with refer(>nce to 
the Alaska l)oundarv would, no doubt, be fully considered l)va tril)unal 
of arbitration, and if found to be established foi" the period prescribed 
in the treaty, might s(>ttle the controversy in their favor. 

But it is not admitted tiiat such control was exercised I)v the United 



138 corrksi>()NDEN(;k aktkk aiuoihn.mknt 

States until Ncrv iccciilly and at't(»i- due notice of the t-laini of Ilei- 
Majesty's Government, and in tliese cireunistaiK-«!s. t!ie faet of its 
exercise appears to l)e a reason in favor of . rather tluin an obstacle to. 
arbitration. 

The fact that the starting- point in the present controversy is a ti'eaty. 
and that, in tiie dispute with Venezuela, the claims on either side were 
l)ased on discovery and occupation, can not, in the opinion of Her 
Majesty's Goveriunent. constitute any essential ditrer<Mice t)et\veen tiie 
two cases. Tlu^ rul(\s iio-reed to by Grinit P)ritain and the Unitetl States 
for the ii'uidance of the tribunal were intended to pro\ide for the 
admission in ari>ument of e\"erv ground uj)on which an e(iuitablc claim 
to disputed territoi'v may be based. As has already been pointed out, 
it is the Government of the United States who have imported into the 
j)resent di.scussion other considerations than riiat of strict treaty right, 
and I trust that on fidl consideration they will not continue to object 
to these con.siderations being- t(»sted l)y rules which, with their apj)roval 
and with the consent of Her Majesty \s Government, have l)een applied 
to a similar case. 

If, however, the I'nited States Go\'ernnient still consider that the 
terms of the Venezuelan treaty are in any respect inade(iuate to ])ro- 
vide for an equitable settlement of the present controversy, such 
suggestions as they have to otter will receive attentive considciation 
from Her Majesty's (iovermnent. 

You are authorized to read this despatch to AJr. Hay, and to leave 
a copy of it with him if he should so desire. 
1 am. etc.. 

Salisbury. 

R. Tower, Esq., cfc.^ etc., etc. 



Mr. i'liodtc io Lord S,(l islm r;/. 

A M E KTC A N Em bass V . 
London, S. U:. .Jomiorn 22. 1900. 

My Lord: Your Loi-dship's despatch to ]\Ir. Tower, No. 218. of 
October 14, lS9i>. has been jjlaced in my hands, with instructions to 
resj)ond to Your Lordship's courteous reipiest to make further sug- 
gestions in reply ])eai'ing upon the question luider discussion. 

The Lnited States (Jovernment is not to be undei'stood as refusing 
to submit to the adjudication of an indejXMuient tribunal the real ([ues- 
tion at issue betwcMMi us in respect to the Alaska boundai'v. On the 
contrary, as I understand it, the present discussion contemphites the 
probability of such a submission. As I stated in my note of August 
t), to which Your Lordship's note to Mr. Tower is an indirect reply, 
the Pi'esident was yirevented by the considerations there stated from 
assenting to the pro])osal that tlie Venezuela treaty, as it stands, should 
be api)lie<l here, and that the sid)ject-mattei' to be adjudicated and the 
terms and conditions by w hich its action should be limittMl ought, if 
possil)le, first to be decided. 

The Venezu(da ti-eaty was calculated, and, as the result has shown, 
well and properly cidcuhited, to enable the Tribunal to make by com- 
promise a boundar}' line in respect of which there has never been an 
agreement between the j)arties. and to evolve a fair adjustment of their 



OF .f<iINr I1I(;H ( OMMlSSKiN, 181) 

T(\><])(H'ti\o claims out of the facts of discoxcry. occupat ion. and other 
historical circiimstauc(>s in wliich thcii- dispute as to the l»ouM(hirv had 
been involved for uioi'e than a century, durinu' which the <|uestion had 
l)een always open. But in the present instance thcM'e is an express 
a^ifreement of the parties detining the Ijoundai'v — in the treaty of 
1825 — which has sul)sistod ever since, practically without dispute as to 
its inter]M-(>tation on the principal ])oint. .V <-lear and distinct inter- 
pretation on this ])oint was j)ut ui)on it l»y l>otir])arties in the written 
neiiotiations which resulted in the nieetino- of their minds u|)on it. 
This inter|)retation was i-euurded by both parties as vital and vei-y 
inil)ortant to their rt^spective intcM'ests. It was ])ublicly declared and 
acted u})()n l)y Russia from the date of the treaty until she conveyed 
to the I'nited States in lsi>7. and all that time at any rate it was acipii- 
esced in by Great Britain. The I'nited States continued ]3ublicly to 
mainttiin and act upon the same interpretation with the acquiescence of 
Great Britain confessedlv until 1SS5. and as we claim until 1S!»8, when 
a new- and wholly different interpretation on this main point was put 
forward by (Treat Britain. The two interpretations thus presented 
are aV)sohitely distinct and are not involved in any confused or doul)t- 
ful historical explorations. One or the other is right and can and 
should be ascertaiiu'd and determined so to be, to the exclusion of the 
other, and ncMther party wishes to ac(|uire an inch of the territory 
lightly belonging to the other. Surely the tril)unal which is to pa.ss 
ui)on such a question should not be enabled to compi-onnse it, but 
should be required siiuply to decide it. If the difference thus raised 
is to be compromised, it should be compromised by the parties them- 
selves, so that they can know exactly what they ai'e doing. 

I have spoken of the interpi'etation of "he treaty u))on tlu' ])rincij)al 
point. By this 1 mean the question whether the strip of coast (la 
lisiere de cote) which by the treaty is to belong to Russia runs around 
the shores of the inlets or across their mouths — the former construction 
necessarily excluding (xreat Britain from the salt water at all points 
to a distance measured by the crests of the mountains pirallel to the 
coast, if there are such, or by ten leagues in the absence of such moun- 
tains, while the latter construction as necessarily gives to Great 
Britain so much of each iidet as extends above a point crossed by a 
line drawn from the crest of the mountains nearest to the coast. This 
is a question of construction })etween the two parties, to l)e determined 
in the usual way by the language of the treaty intei'pi'eted in the light 
of the acts of the parties l)efore and after, and including any claim of 
either that the other is estopped to dispute the const miction which it 
asserts. It is eminently a question for jurists to determine judicially, 
and it W'lis with this view that the United States, through its commis- 
sioners in the Joint High Commission, offered to sulmiit it to a per- 
fectly independent tril)unal. to be composed of six learned jurists, 
three to I)e named by each party, and a majority of them to decide. 
It is not easy to see how any judicial tril)unal could compromise it. 
unless expressly comniissione(l to do so, as in t!ie \'ene/,iuda case. 
They luust decide it one way oi" the otluM-. 

This is the question which we maintain was ne\-er raised by Her 
Majesty's Government until ISDS. Russia and the Tnitc^d States 
claimed the former inter])i-etation from first to last; (ireat Britain 
realized its intrinsic importance from the l)eginnning, but never dis- 
])utedour intei-j)retation. which was open, public, '.md uniform. These 



140 rORRK-^roXDENCE AFTER ADJolRNMENT 

features of the case now presiMited ditiereutiate it liuliciilly from the 
Venezuehi case. 

Your Loixlshi}) state> that '"no (|U('stioii as to the iiit('rj)r('tatioii of 
the treaty was raised hy either party up.til lss5." It would he more 
in harmony with my view of the situation to say that Russia and the 
United States uniforudy and publicly a-serted an intt'rjjrctation of 
the treaty whieh (Jreat liritain did not dispute. 

But assuming tiiis fundamental and very iiuportant question to be 
decided either by an independent tribunal or by agreement of the par- 
ties, another question remains still to be determined — one of crreat 
importance and which has always been open — namely, the exact loca- 
tion of the boundary line accordino- to the spirit and meaning- of the 
treat}' and its precise distance at e\'erv point from the coast. This is 
a (piestion of no small difficulty, orowing out of the alternative pro- 
visions of the third and fourth articles of the treaty, by the former of 
which the width of the strip or the distance of the British possessions 
from the coast is to be measured to the civsts of the paralhd moun- 
tains, but by the latter, if no such mountains are found within ten 
leagues, then l)y that distance or by a distance never exceeding that. 

This minor or secondary (Question might, of course, also be referred 
to an arbitration; but it is obviously not, like the tirst, a question for 
jurists. Tt would properly l)e disposed of l)y a joint surrey. And it 
is a question of such minor imi)ortance, after the tirst ({uestion has 
been oncv determined, that neither party would })robably d(>sire to go to 
the great expense and trouble of an arbiti'ation about it. but they would 
either run the line 1)V agreement or leave it to l)e run l)y a joint sur- 
vey, as was once agreed Ijetween them. For if the tirst question were 
once determined in accordance with the present contention of Her 
Majesty's Govenmient, (Treat Britain or Canada W'Ould have in her 
own possession such a wide and ample stretch of seacoast, being the 
entirety of all inU^ts beyond a point crossed ))y a line drawn from the 
crests of the motuitains nearest the coasts, that a few miles, or even 
leagues, more or Uvss. would make no sut)stantial ditlerent-e. while, on 
the other han'd, if that question were once determined in accoi-dance 
with the uniform contention of Russia and the TnitiHl States since 1X2."), 
Great Britain or Canada having no possible foothold on the seacoast 
through the whole length of the strip or lisiere, a few niih's. oi' even 
leagues, more or less, in its width at any point, would make no \ery 
important ditierence to either party. 

The difficulty of locating the exact boundary line according to an}- 
interpr(^tation of the treaty was in great measure removed by the 
report and maps of the joint survey created by agreement of Great 
Britain and the United Slates in iS'.i-i. 

Before taking u^) Your Lordship's review of the facts and incidents 
since the date of the treaty between Great Britain and Kussiii. which 
are cited asconhrming the view that the question of the interpretation 
of the treaty has been always open, 1 venture, with deference, to ask 
whether in that review the distinction which I have drawn betwiH'u the 
question of the interpretation of the treaty and the question of the 
actual d(Mnarkation of the boundary line has not been lost sight of. for 
it appears very clearly to me that nearly all of them recognize as jin 
open question the actual demarkation of the line, which nuist remain 
open until il is actually acconq)lished. and that they do not suggest 



OF JOINT HIGH COMMISSION. 141 

oi" assume that tlio (luostion of the intorprotation of the treaty now 
raised and insisted upon by (ireat Britain was open. 

It would he stranu-c indeed if Her !\hi]esty's Go\ernnient. at the 
time of the exehanije of the treaty with Russia — or the Russian Gov- 
onnnent of that day — could have reoarded the question now raised by 
Great Britain iis left open, or that any (juestion under the treaty was 
left doul)tful or open for future determination, except the actual 
demarkation of the boundary line so as to carry out the spirit and 
intent of the treaty as well known to them both and freshh' in their 
minds from the protracted and very earn(\st struo-gle which they had 
had over its terms. 

One persistent etfort of Her ^Majesty's representatives in that neg'o- 
tiation was to ^et to the sea, in the interest of the Hudson's Bay Com- 
pany'. The eiiually persistent etfort of the representatives of Russia 
was to set up a bari-ier in a strip of hind which should keep (ireat 
Britain away from the sea at all points from the southern end of Prince 
of Wales Island to Mount St. Elias, so that the Russian estal)lishments 
on the islands and the coast belonging- to the Russian American Com- 
pany coulcl by no possibility be interfered with, a point which the 
iieo'otiators on behalf of Great Britain expressh' and tinally yielded. 

I may not properly here enter upon an analysis of the protracted 
negotiations which culminated in the treaty of ]S25. They are now 
very familiar, and as Ave claim the whole course of the negotiation 
shows that the ]^ritish plenipotentiaries, and Mr. Secretary Canning 
as well, had a perfectly clear conception of the lisiere upon which 
Russia insisted so strenuously — that it was to be Russia's impenetrable 
barrier to an}" alien access to or from the inner region of the mainland, 
a strip of teri'itory running parallel to the sinuosities of the coast, and 
necessarily around the inlets and not across their mouths, extending 
at all points from the water's edge to the interior possessions of Great 
Britain, beginning at the point of the continent where the line ascend- 
ing to the north along Portland Channel strikes the tifty-sixth degree 
of north latitude and extending to the intersection of the one hundred 
and forty-tirst meridian. It constituted a definite expanse of territorv 
over which and over the tide water along it, as well as over the islands 
outside of it, Russia possessed an exclusive jurisdiction — the same 
which she afterwards conveyed in its entirety to the United States. 
It could bo pierced in favor of Great Britain only by rivers having 
their origin in British dominions and tiowing through the Russian 
territorial strip to tide water; and as to these, no lodgment on the 
Russian shore, but only access to the interior, was granted to Great 
Britain. The provisions as to this strip of land in the fifth and sixth 
articles of the original treaty, where it is referred to as '"la lisiere de 
terre ferme" and "lisiere de la cote," must have been understood by 
the negotiators on l)oth sides in the same sense. 

And the fact that ))y the seventh article of the treaty Russia gave, 
and Great Britain took, a license for British vessels for ten years from 
the date of the treaty to frequent "toutes les mors interieures, les 
Colfes, Havres et Cri(|ues sur la Cote'" proves that the negotiators on 
both sides nuist have understood that all these interior waters, etc., 
were in Russian territory. 

In view of this, we claim and insist that when the tn^aty was signed 
the question now raised and pressed by Her Majesty's (lovernment 
whether the lisiere ran around the inlets or sinuosities of the coast or 

26626— Ai' 10 



142 CORRESPONDENCE AFTER ADJOURNMENT 

across tlu'lr nioutlis was not left open or uiuhMstood by the iieu'otia- 
tors on either side or by either (Tovernnient for which they acted as 
an open question, and if not then left open it certaiidy was never 
attempted to be opened until ISSo — and as we chiini not until 181»8. 
Of course, the actual demarkation of the line with whatever difficulties 
pertained to it according to the spirit and meanino- of the treaty was 
necessarily left open, and could only l)e determined after the country 
was explored In' competent survey. 

Comino- n()w to the references to the boundary ((uestion in sul)se- 
(juent correspondence between the (Tovernments wiiich Your Lordship 
reo'ards as havino- l)een always upon the admitted l)asis that the whole 
line was undetermined, and that tiie interpretation of the boundary 
articles of the treaty was entirely an open question, 1 submit that in 
each instance, especiall}' in view of what had preceded tluring Russia's 
ownership, these references indicated or assumed no more than that 
the whole line was undetermined in the sense of not having- been sur- 
veved and marked, but not that the interpretation of the treatvon the 
main point now under consideration was in any sense open. 

Inunediately after the making of the treaty, the Russian Govern- 
ment proceeded with the preparation of a map showing the respective 
possessions of Russia and Great Britain as tixed by the treaty. This 
map was published in St. Peterslnirg in 1827 l\v order of His Imperial 
^Majesty. It runs the l)oundary line from the head of Portland Chan- 
nel at a distance of ten marine leagues from tide water around the head 
of all the inlets to the one hundred and forty-first meridian. And 
along this line upon the map is inscribed the words ''Limites des pos- 
sessions Russes et Anglaises d'apres le Traite do 1825." There could 
have been no more direct and peremptory challenge to Great Britain, 
if its Government at that time regarded the interpretation of the treaty 
as having been left an open (juestion at the time of its signature, or 
as being then an open question as to which each Govermnont was free 
to urge its own views. The great importance of this location of the 
boundary as between the two nations, as represented respectively by 
the Hudson's Bay Company and the Russian American Company, 
must have been still very fresh and vivid upon the minds of Her 
Majesty's ministers who had negotiated and concluded the treaty, 
Russia thus proclaiming to them and to the world a clear and emphatic 
interpretation of the tr(^aty which conformed to that which the nego- 
tiators on both sides had put upon it. Was not that tlie time and the 
last time for (ireat Britain to speaks Could her Government lie l)y 
without a protest, and at any time afterwards claim a different interpi-e- 
tation which would nullify the whole object of Russia in making tlie 
treaty^ But Great Britain did not merely lie by without a protest; 
she and Canada also expressly adopted this location of the boundary 
exactly as Russia had defined It. 

In 18;>1 the map prepared by Bouchette, deputy surveyoi'-general 
of the Province of Lower Canada, "published as the act directs by 
James Wild, geograpiier to the King, London. ]\Iay 2nd, 1831," traces 
tii(^ Russian l)<)undary on the continent exactly according to the Rus- 
sian imjjerial map of 1827. And in 1882 the map of Arrowsinith. the 
most authoi'itative cartographer of London, whose earlier map liad 
been used by the negotiators of the treat3\ does exactly the same thing, 
stating upon its face that it contains the latest information which the 
documents of the Hudson's Bay Company furnish. And it will hardly 



OF JOINT hi(;h commission. 143 

bo questioned thtit :it tlnit time tlie IIuclsoii's Bay Coinpany })ossesse(I 
all the powers of ooveninient in the British territory in that region 
and was in faet the only British authoi'ity there. Can it be elainied 
that at the time of the pul)lieation of that map, apparently by the 
authority of the Hudson's Bay Company and of the British Govern- 
ment— at any rate without a protest from either — they then regarded 
the interpretation of the treat}' on this cardinal point as an open 
([uestion^ 

And o!i Canadian authority maps were sul)se(iuently pul)lished defin- 
ing the boundary in the same way, excluding (Ireat Britain from all 
access to tide water along the whole extent of the line — notably, 
Devine's map, published "by order of the Hon. Joseph Cauciion. 
Coiumissioner of Crown Lands, Crown l)e})artment. Toronto. March, 
1857. ■' All the map makers of the world followed suit, and a careful 
search has failed to discover any map published anywhere prior to 
1884 in which this boundar}' line did not conform to the original 
Russian imperial map of 1827. 

Your Lordship suggests that the only value of that region during 
the period from IS^f) to 1S07 lay in the fur trade; that by the terms 
of the treaty that tradcMvas thrown open on ecpial terms for ten years 
to the citizens of Great Britain, Russia, and the Ignited States; that 
])efore the ten years expired the negotiations between the Hudson's 
Bay Com]:)any and the Russian American Company, which resulted in 
the lease l)y the latter to the former of the lisiere, had been initiated; 
and that as that lease, though made at first for ten j'ears, by renewals 
terminated only on the date when Alaska was ceded to the United 
States, it was a matter of indifi'erence to that company whether it 
derived its rights from its British charter or from the Russian lease. 
But to me it is hardly conceival)le that the Hudson's Bay Coinpany. 
l)acked by the whole power and prestige of the British CTO\'ernment, 
would, with its approval', have accepted that lease if either the com- 
pany or the Government had had the least idea that nnder the treaty 
of 1825 they were entitled as of right to what they took by lease and 
to what Canada now claims; and so I insist with renewed earnestness 
that the taking of that lease and the renewals w^ere declarations to the 
world that neither regarded as open the contention now made on 
behalf of Canada. 

The information conveyed in Your Lordship's note, that before the 
expiration of the ten 3'ears' license provided in the seventh article of 
the treaty, negotiations had been initiated between the Hudson's Bay 
Company and the Russian American Company for the lease of the 
lisiere, which appears to have been signed at Haml)urg February 0. 
1839. and that by renewals it was terminated only on the date when 
Alaska was ceded to the United States, is the first to that etlect that 
my Government has received. All the data in its possession, includ- 
ing the Alaskan archives now in the State Department, had indicated 
that the negotiations for the lease had been brought al)out in the lat- 
ter part of the year 1S38. three years after the expiration of the ten 
years, by a note from the British Ambassador in St. Petersl)urg, 
revising the claim of the Drii<i<1 — and the last record in the Ahiskan 
archives of a renewal of it only extends it to 1865. But assuming 
Y'our Lordship's information to be more accurate, we submit that both 
circumstances show that neither before the conunencement of the lease, 
nor at its termination, did the Hudson's Bay Company or the British 



1-44 CORRESPONDENCE AFTER ADJOTRNMENT 

(lovernment, which it so fully n^presented, regard the question now 
under consideration as open, or that the premises covered by the lease 
were in British territory; for in the one case they would have entered 
upon no not^'otiations before the expii'ation of the license, and in the 
other would not have yielded ])()sses.sion without protest oi' niurinur, 
t)ut in both cases would have held on as of riuiit. 

What took place in IS.")?, following the ap})()intnient of a Select 
Conuiiitt(>e in the Hous(> of Commons ''to coiisid(M" the state of thosi^ 
British possessions in North America which are under the administra- 
tion of the Hudson's Bay Conipan}', or over which the}' possess a license 
to trade," is extremely signilicant to show that no one concerned on 
the part of the company or the committee had any doubt about the 
interpretation of the treaty on the point now l)eing discussed. 
Among the members of the conunittee Avere Lord John Kussell, Lord 
Stanlev, Mr, Roebuck, Mr. Gladstone, and Mr. Ellice, who was a 
native of Canada, and a director of the Hudson's Bay Com})any. 
Chief Justice Draper, of Canada, attended its session as the represent- 
ative of the Government of Canada; Sir George Simpson, governor 
of the territory and president of the company, was a principal wit- 
ness. In connection with his testimony he produced a map of the ter- 
ritory leased, sa^'ing, '"There is a margin of coast marked yellow on 
the map from 54^ 4<»' up to Cross Sound which we have rented from 
the North American Company for a term of years," and the boundary 
as laid down on that map conforms to the present claim of the United 
States, being carried around all the iidets and interior waters. The 
map was printed l)y order of Parliament, and no objection to the 
validity of the lease or to the correctness of the map was suggested 
by anybody. The lease itself was not only made with the approval of 
both Governments represented by the two companies, but shortly 
before this Parliamentary inquiry it had been ratified anew by both 
Governments. During the Crimean war, at the request of the two 
companies, the territory covered by the lease was l)y the order of both 
Governments exemi)ted from the operations of the war. 

I have thus carefully reviewed all the cii'cinnstances that intervened 
from the negotiations of the treaty in 1S25 till the cession to the I'nited 
States in ISGT, a period during which, 1 think, we may reasonably claim 
that this main ([uestion was not regarded as open by either Russia or 
Great Britain. l)ut that the acts of both solidly confirmed the interpre- 
tation put upon the treaty at the beginning by Russiii and ever since 
by her and by the United States, not only because of their conclusive 
effect, but because it is necessary to bear this prior history in mind in 
considering the subse(|uent facts relied upon hy Your Lordshij) as indi- 
cating that both parties sul>se(|uently regarded this (luestit)n as o])en, 
and also to keep clearly in mind the distinction l)etween this funda- 
mental question and the actual demarkation in accoi-dance with the 
spirit and intent of the treaty as thus uniforndy int(M-i)reted by l>oth 
parties, which was always open and never could be accomplished until 
after a complete surve}' of the rc^gion through which the line ran. 

Bearing these things in mind, I submit to Your Lordship that it is 
impossible to sustain the suggestion that President Grant, in his animal 
message to Congress in December, 1S72, accejited the view that '"the 
inter})retation of the ))oundary articles of the treaty was entirely an 
open (juestion as to which each Gt)vernment was free to urge its own 
views." On the contrarv, no such idea can be read even ))etween the 



OF JOINT HIGH COMMIS-^ION. 145 

lines of his iiiossiiiio. Indeed, he asserts the houndarv to })e an 
"admitted honndarv,"" and only alludes to the line as heinj^' undeter- 
mined in the sense of its never having- been surveyed and marked 
down; and the message furnishes a very strong- argument in su})})()rt 
of our present eontention tiiat the main (juestion was not open. 

It w'ill be remembered that the award of the Emperor of (xermany 
in tiie San ,Iuan ease had just then )>een made. The questions involved 
were in some respects singularly like those involved here: first, whether 
the water boundary d(>senl)ed in the treaty ran through Riosario Chan- 
nel or through Ilaro Channel, and, second, whichever channel was 
decided to l)e the one, to survey and mark it out accoi-ding to the spirit 
and intent of the treaty. The British commissioners had proixjsed 
that the art)itrator should have the right to draw the boundary through 
an internuxliate channel. The Amei'ican conunissioners declined this 
proposal, stating that they desired a decision, and not a compromise; 
and the sulimission to the Emperor was to determine whether it ran 
through one channel or the other, and his award had been that it was 
most in accoi'dance with the true interpretation of the treaty that the 
])oundary line should l)e run through the Ilaro Chamiel; but this left 
still undetermined the tracing out and marking of the line in conform- 
ity with the award. 

President Grant, having in his message stated the history of the 
ease and his satisfaction with the award and with the pi'ompt and 
spontaneous action of Iler ^lajesty's Government giving etfect to it, 
and having already said, "The award leaves us, for the first time 
in the history of the United States as a nation, without a qutHtion of 
dispKted houndciTy heticeen our territory and the possessions of Great 
Britain on this continent^''' proceeds: 

It now becomes necessary to complete the survey and determination of tliat portion 
of the boundary Hne (through the Haro Channel) upon which the commission 
which determined the remaining part of the line were unable to agree. I reitom- 
luend the appointment of a commission to act jointly with one which may be named 
))y Her Majesty for that purpose. 

Kxperieiice of the dirticuities attending tlie di^termiiiation of our admitted line of 
Ijoundary, after the occu{)ation of the territory and its settlement bv tliose owing 
allegiance to tiie respective Governments, i)oints to the importance of establishing, 
l)y natural objects or other monuments, the actual line between the territory 
ac<|uired by j)urchase from Russia and the adjoining jiossessions of Her Britannic 
Majesty. The region is now so sparsely occupied that no conflicting interests of 
indivitluals or of jurisdiction are likely to interfere to the delay or embarrassment of 
the actual location of the line. If deferred until population shall enter and occupy 
the territory, some trivial contest of ni'igh])ors may again airay the two Govern- 
ments in antagonism. I tlierefore recommend the appointment of a commission, to 
act jointly with one that may be ap]>ointed on the i)art of Great I'ritain, to deter- 
mine the line between our territorv of Alaska and the conterminous {possessions of 
(Treat Britain. (For. Hel., U. S., 1872.) 

Is it not absolutely c(U'tain that no idea of there being any open ques- 
tion a))out the interpretation of the treaty had ever entered the Presi- 
dent's mind^ He declares it to be '"an admitted line of boimdarv." 
and reconunends. exactly as in the San Juan case upon the footing of 
the award, "a joint conmiission to determine the line." 

President (irant's recommendation was occasioned by piM'sona! con- 
ference between the liritish Minister, Sir Edward Thornton, and the 
Secretary of State, Mr. Fish, in the preceding month, in which the 
former, under instructions from the Foreign OtHce, proposed 
the appointment of a joint conunission for the pur])Ose of defining 
the boundary })etween Alaska and British Columbia, and he reported 



146 CORRESPONDENCE AFTER ADJOURNMENT 

uiulor fUite of Novemliev 25 that ]\Ir. Fish statod that the President 
had dctennined to reeomiiiend in liis annual message tliat a joint com- 
mission l)e appointed '''for the purpose of hiyinodown the l)oundarv." 
On the 23d of December of the same year Sir Edward Thornton, 
referring to his ])re\'ious conference with Secretary Fish, transmitted 
to the Foreign Office a copy of the hill introduced in Congress 
''autliorizing the survey and marking of the boundary"' (see Canadian 
Session Tapers. 1S78. No. 125. j^p. O. 7, 8). In no pai't of this corre- 
spond(Mice is there any intimation that the interpretation of the treaty 
was in dispute. It was merely a movement to have the boundai-y fixed 
by the treaty surveyed and nrarked. 

When gold was discovered in the Cassiar region, which was reached 
through the Stikine. and the passage of miners u]^ that river ensued, 
it was deemed wise to have the eastern boundary of the lisiere where 
it crosses that river more accurately defined, which lead to the move- 
ment in 1873-74 on the part of the two (xoveriunents for a joint sur- 
A'ey. The cost of a survey of the entire boundary being objected to, 
it was suggested, in a conference between Sir Pklward Thornton and 
Secretary Fish, that it would be sufficient to fix the Ijoundary at cer- 
tain named points, viz. the head of the Portland Canal, '"the points 
where the boundary line crosses the rivers Skoot, Stikine, Taku, Isle- 
cat, and Chilkat. ]Mount St. Elias. etc." The legislative assembly of 
British ColumI)ia, in petitioning the Canadian Government for a sur- 
vey, refers to it as "the boundary of the thirty-mile-l)elt of American 
territory."" Dennis, Surveyor-General of Canada, to whom the matter 
was referred, restated the points to be determined and named the 
rivers, viz. Skoot. Stikine. Taku. Islecat, and Chilkat. 4'he Skoot 
was at no point nearer than 25 miles to tide water, and the points of 
crossing of the rivers were far above the heads of itdets into which 
they emptied. The survey was agreed upon, but failed because Con- 
gress made no appropriation; but it is clear that the British and 
Canadian authorities understood that the eastern boundary of the 
strip crossed the rivers named at some point above their mouths, 
which are at the head of inlets, including Lynn Canal, and that the 
boundary could not therefore cross any of those inlets, which is quite 
inconsistent with the theory that the (juestion was then regarded as 
o})en whether the lisiere ran around the inlets or crossed their mouths. 

In the years 1874 to 1876. questions aros(> as to the proper location 
of custom-houses of the two Governments on the Stikine Kiver, and 
the point in dispute centered around the crossing of the river by the 
boundary line 30 miles in a direct line from the coast. The British 
Minister, reciting the complaint, stated that the British custom-house 
was "supposed to be within the I'nited States territory — that is. within 
th(» ten mai'ine leagues from the coast."" The Pri\v Council of the 
Dominion of Canada, in moving the Governor-CTCMiei-al to bring the 
subject of the sui'vey again to the attention of the Fnited Sttites. I'ccites 
that ''the Stikine River intersects the international boundary in the 
vicinity of the fifty-seventh degree of noi'tii latitude"" that is, 30 nau- 
tical miles from the coast in a direct lint\ 

It is admitted by Your Lordship that in 1873 the discussion between 
the two G()\ei"nm(mts was entirely confined to the (piestion of a joint 
survey, an indispensable preliminary to any attempt to fix the bound- 
ai'V and '"ntMcr touched n\Hm the iiiter|)retation of tlie treaty." But 



OF .JOINT HKJH COMMISSION. 147 

my (lovonmient can not ayrec to the i)roi)<)siti()n that "in th(> coni- 
pK'te ahseiice of toj>()iiraj)hical information as to tlie countrv. it was 
obviously impossil)K' to discuss that question and that it was tacitly 
avoided by both sides." 

What could the al)sence or presence of topographical information 
as to the country have to do with the question whether the lisiere, by 
the true inter})retati()n of the treaty, ran around the inlets or across 
their mouths^ whether it was intend(>d to be a contiiuious border of 
solid land, which should serve as an eti'ectual barrier against the access 
of the Canadians to salt water, or should be no strip at all. but a broken 
series of ])ortions of the coast, admittinu' Canada to full possession :ind 
enjoyment of the interior waters in many })laces^ And how coidd the 
suyoestion of Secretary Fish as to the points where the boundary 
descri])ed in the treat}- crossed the rivers, all of Avhich were points of 
consideral)le distance above the inlets, fail to command the attention 
of Her Majesty's Government if it had all this time been of opinion 
that the upper part of these inlets was in each case in British territory ( 
If. as Your Lordship concedes, the sul)ject of the interpretation of the 
treaty was in that correspondence tacitly avoided on the side of (ireat 
Britain, may we not fairly claim that the reason for silence on the part 
of the Tnited States was because the positive interpretation which had 
been publicly and uniformly asserted by Russia and themselves for 
nearly tifty years had never been questioned; in other words, because 
there was no question? Certainly, the United States never avoided 
it. tacith' or otherwise. 

My (irovernment does not reoard what took place between the two 
(ioviM-nments in 1S76-77 in the case of Peter Martin as havino- any 
conclusi\(' bearino-. My reference to it in my note of August '• was 
quite casual, as to one of the very few instances in which there had 
])een any correspondence on the subject of the boundary; but there are 
certain features in that ease which are relevant. No one can read the 
note of Secretary Fish to Sir Edward Thornton of January K), 1877, 
and imi)ute to him any suspicion that the interprc^tation of the treaty 
definition of the boundary on the point now under consideration was 
open, or that anything- was left undetermined except the exact location 
of the admitted boundary line. He says: 

The al)Sfnce of a line defined and marked on the surface of the earth as that of 
the limit or })onnilary Ijetween the two countries can not confer upon either a juris- 
diction beyond the point where such line should in fact be — that is, the boundary 
which the treaty makes the boundary. Surveys make it certain ami patent, l)ut do 
not alter rights or chantje riglitful jurisdiction. 

It is (pute true that the Minister of Justice reconunended that the 
release of Martin l)e i)ut upon the ground of the conveyance of the 
pi'isoner through American territory. But the British Charge, in 
his note to Mr. Fish, did not state the ground u})on which the ivlease 
was ordered; and the proceedings seemed to inxolve ti tacit concession 
on the part of (ireat Britain that the place of the assault Mas in Amer- 
ican territory. The demand foi- his release was upon tliat groiuid. 
and the British Minister so understood it. In examining the Canadian 
documents in relation to the case, it appears that the surveyor, who 
was sent l>y the Canadian Surveyor-Ceneral to visit the locality, 
reported four months before the release of Martin that the assault for 
which Martin was tried was committed in the territory of the I'nited 
States 13 miles from the mouth of the Stikine Kiver; and the Ministtn- 



148 CORRESPONDENCE AFTER ADJOURNMENT 

of Justice, to w lioiii the case was referred for imcstij^-iition, reported 
to the Privv Council that the assault was upon American territory, 
and no suogestion to the contrary was made hy anyone on the part of 
(Jreat Bi'itain. 

In my note of Au*>ust 0, 1 made no reference to Mr. liayard's note 
to Mr. Phelps of Novemher 20, LSS."). jind to the correspondence which 
that note initiated. This omission was not from overlook! n^- that note 
and correspondence. l)ut because a carefid readino- of it had satistied 
me: and now that Your Lordship has brought it up, 1 submit to your 
candid judonient that Mr, Bayard did not there take the view that the 
interpi'etation of the l)Oundary articles of the treaty was an open ques- 
tion, but only that the demarkation of the line was undetermined and 
was full of difficulties in the then state of topoo-raphical knowledtic. 
Of course, Mr. Bayard in that note made no claim that the interpre- 
tation of the treaty as regards any particular part of the boundary 
line was no longer open, for nobody, so far as we can discover, had 
up to that date claimed that it was open. Certainly no one on the 
part of Her Majesty's Government had done so. Undoubtedly, Mr. 
Bayard did point out in that note that '' no cpiestion concerning- the 
true location of the line stipulated in the treaty had ever arisen betAveen 
Great Britain and Russia prior to the cession of Alaska to the United 
States.'' But in the same pai)er and in the same connection, he had 
already said, "It is certnin that no question has arisen .sv'/?cv^ 1S()7 
l)etween the Governments of the United States and Great Britain in 
regard to this boundary," thus covering- the whole period from 1825 
to 1885. In view of these emphatic declarations, my Government is 
at a loss to understantl how he can be held to have sustained the view 
that at the latter date the interpretation of the treaty as to the bouiid- 
ar}^ was an open question between the two Governments. 

All the statements of Mr. Bayard and Mr. Phelps in the correspond- 
ence that followed must be read in the light of these declarations and in 
view of the ol)ject at which they were aiming, viz, to obttun. not an arbi- 
tration to interpret the treaty, but a joint coumiission, which should 
make a survey of the line stipulated by the treaty, or, as Mr. Bayard 
afterwards limited it (in his subsequent instruction of March 19. l8S(j, 
to Mr. Phelps), to "'an agreement for a })reliminary survey of the 
Alaska boundary with a view to the discovery of such natural outlines 
and objects as may be made the basis for a future formal convention 
for the survey of the boundary line." He was deeply impressed with 
the extreme difficulty and enormous expense of a survey of the bound- 
ary line — ditficultics and expense whu-h we think have been very 
greatly reduced 1)V the rei)ort of the joint coumiission appointed in 
185>"i and the ma|)s pre])ared by that conuuission — but all that Mr. 
Bayard and Mr. Phelps said may be read in vain for an}" indications 
of a doubt in the mind of either, whether the lisiere was a continuous 
and solid strip of land running around the inlets, and excluding- Great 
Britain from access to the sea in every part of its length, or a conge- 
ries of broken strips interrupted at the mouth of every inlet and admit- 
ting her to exclusive possession of all parts of every inlet above a* 
l)oint crossed by a line drawn from the crests of the mountains nearest 
to the coast. The difficulties of which ^Ir. Bayard treated at great 
length were the same which Mr. Fish and tlie (>xperts of both (to\ ern- 
ments then consulted had encountered in 1872, but neither then nor in 



OF JOINT HKiH COMMISSION. 149 

ISS,") (lid thev «uo-o-est a (li\"('ri»('nce ot" views as to the iiiterj)retation 
of the treaty. 

When the Karl of Iddeslei^jli sent the Canadian inai) to Mr. Phelps 
with his note of August 27, ISSH. and felt called upon to disavow the 
correctness of the line of houndarv as marked on it. he raised no ([ues- 
tion about the interi)retation of the treaty of 1825 — certainly none as 
to whether the lisierc ran around the inlets, so as to keep Canada at 
all points 30 marine miles from salt water — hut pointed directly and 
exclusively to the doubt which had always existed as to the exact loca- 
tion of the ))oundary line, the eastern edge of the lisiere, occasioned 
by the alternatixe clauses of the treaty defining" it by parallel moun- 
tain sunnnits. or in their absence by the ten h'agues. He says that 
the l)oundary line shown on the map *' is merely an indication of the 
occurrence of a dividing line sonKur/n^rc In that ftijiitn;"' and he goes 
on to explain what he means by that and why no weight could be 
attached to it. inasmuch as the treaty *' irJilch drfine-s the line makes its 
location depend on alternative circumstances — the occurrence or non- 
occurrence of mountains, and, as is well known to all concerned, the 
country has never been topographicallv surveyed." Surely, consid- 
ering that at that time, more than sixty years since the treaty, the 
question now raised had never been suggested, nor any question about 
the meaning of "'the coast"" or "the sinuosities of the coast," the 
phrases employed in the treaty, he could not have intended covertly to 
raise it for the tirst time l)v the language used, nor could he have 
believed that our Government would so understand that language, 
which by the ordinary rules applicable to diplomatic correspondence, 
or to any correspondence, must be limited to its obvious meaning; for 
after sixty years of silent acquiescence and occasional active concur- 
rence in the interpretation publicly asserted by Russia and the United 
States, if he intended to raise such a radical question to the contrary, 
h(^ should have done it in unmistakable terms. The Earl of Iddes- 
U'lgh's hmguage is in exact conformity with the inscription upon the 
maj) itself, which he enclosed, and which doubtless suggested to him 
the caution which he gave. 

The boundary between British Cohnnbia and Alairika as shown upon this map is 
taken from a map of British Colnml)ia pul)lished in 1S71, under the direction of 
* * * Hurveyor-deneral for the Province of British C'ohuuliia; Init no steps have 
yet been taken by the Canadian (iovermnent to verify what decree of accuracy may 
be attached to the boundary thus laiil down. 

The same observations apply in full force to the language ciuoted by 
Your Lordship from the memorandum given to Mr. Secretary Bayard 
by Sir L. S. Sackville West in Se})temt)er. 1887. There was no more 
reason why the United States (TO\(M'iunent should take exception to 
this declaration than to that of Lord Iddesleigh. already discussed. In 
April. l8St), Sir L. W<\st had been instrui-ted by Lord Kosebevy to 
inform the (iovermnent of the United States th;it Her Majesty's (lov- 
ernment are prepared to take i)art in a preliminary investigation of 
the boundary (juestion. And Lord Rosebery had notified Mr. Phelps 
that he did not propose to move fui'ther in the matter until he knew 
what action was taken towards an appropriation ])y Congress. 

In the meantime. Lieutenant Schwatka, ha\ing l)een sent to Alaska, 
not by the I'nited States (iovernment, but l)y (Jeneral Miles. tluMi 
connuanding the DepartmtMit of the Columltia. and not to make any 
survey, but to gather information foi' militai'y purposes, had made 



150 CORRESPONDENCE AFTER ADJOURNMENT 

his report, aiul iR'ither the rc'ix^rt nor the maps which accompany it 
delineating his route disclose any boundary survey on his part or the 
fixing- of any points for the boundary. His report, howe\er. casually 
stated that ""the country beyond Terrier Pass" (which by his map 
appears to l)c more than 20 leagues l)eyond the head of Lynn Canal), 
''lying in British territory, lessens the interest of this trail beyond 
the pass to the military authorities of our (Jovernnient." This remark, 
which from the context is shown to l)e merely incidental to the nar- 
rative of his journey, has no further signilicance than an assertion on 
his part that the Kotush ^lountains are situated in British territory. 
And Sir L. West, in his memorandum, so far from raising an}- ques- 
tion about the interpretation of the treatv, or claiming that the ques- 
tion now presented was open, expressly declined to raise any discussion 
even in regard to the position of the boundary, ])ut merely called 
attention to Lieutenant Schwatka's statement, so that no prejudice 
might come from silence about it. There is no indication that either 
he or Lord Kosebery had any idea th;it anv question of interpretation 
existed. 

' I venture to suggest that Your Lordship ma}" have inadvertently and 
without full consideration of the circumstances laid too much stress 
upon Dr. Dawson's letter of February, 1888, which comes next in order 
of time. Your Lordship draws the conclusion that '" Dr. Dawson, dur- 
ing the sittings of the Joint High Commission of 1888, made it dis- 
tinctly clear that //</' JIajcsf//\s (rorcr/t///e/tt cVAimexi that the ))oundary 
should, in accordance with the terms of the treaty, cross all narrow 
waters that were of such width as to t^e within territorial jurisdiction."' 
and "that United States citizens who have settled recently at the head 
of Lynn Canal have done so with the full knowledge," as given in that 
letter, ""that they were settling in disputed territory." 

It appears by the documents transmitted to Congress l)v President 
Cleveland, March 2, 1889, that Secretary Bayard reported that "'dur- 
ing the session of the Fisheries Conference of 1887-88 in Washington 
it was suggested that an informal consultation between some pei'son 
in this country possessing knowledge of the question in dispute and a 
Canadian similarly equipped might tend to facilitate the discovery of 
a basis of agi'eement between the Ignited States and Great Britain upon 
which a practical boundary line could be established." 

Mr. Bayard then proceeds to state that to this end several confer- 
ences were held ])etween Professor Dall, of 'the United States (xeolog- 
ical Survey, and Dr. Dawson, an eminent Canadian authority, but 
without any other result than that each of these gentlemen had given 
his account of these conferences — the former to the Secretary of State, 
the latter to Sir Charles TuppiM' — which, together with other docu- 
ments, including a letter of Dr. Dawson to Sir Charles Tupper on the 
boundary (juestion and memorandum of Professor Dall on the same 
subject, with maps, were submitted. l*rofessor Dall. in his report of 
the interviews, says: "It was nmtually announced and agreed that the 
meeting was entirely informal; that neither party had any delegated 
authority whatever," and it is quite clear that they had no govern- 
mental authority whatever on either side. "• It was thought that if 
Dr. Dawson and myself could unite in reconnnending some plan as 
practicable, tliat opinion or i)lan would be entith^d to some considera- 
tion." ThestM'onferences were not held '" during the sittings of the 
Joint Ilio-h Conunission of 1SS8." and tliis. the first suggestion that 



OF JOINT HIGH COMMISSION. 151 

has come to our knowlodoo '•'that the bouiulary should in accordanoe 
with the terms of the treaty cross" any "waters, was not presented 
l)et"or(> the Commission. l)ut in this " informal meetin<;^-" where '* neither 
party had any d(dei;ated powers whatever." 

It ai)]iears by Dr. Dawson's UHter. upon wliicli Your Lordship relies, 
that he did not put forward this idea as oriuinally his own. or one for 
w iiich he was responsible, or as a claim in any sense of Her ^Majesty's 
Government, but as the view of a Canadian land survevor, General 
Cameron, which he says in his letter to Sir Charles Tupper "may be 
substantially adopted," and he courteously furnishes Professor Dall 
with a copy of the letter as stating clearly General Cameron's views. 
It was wholly inuiiaterial whether Dr. Dawson adopted General 
Cameron's views or not: but Sir (,'harles Tuj)})er. who was then in 
^^'ashino•ton. and wjis keenly alive to the importance of everything 
bearing on the Alaska boundary, was in no mood to adopt them. He 
a])pears purposely to have refrained from doing so: for in communi- 
cating to the Secretary of State a copy of this letter of Dr. Dawson, 
he refers to it as explanatory, not of the views of himself, or of the 
Canadian or the Imperial Government, but of Dr. Dawson's own views. 
I annex a copy of Sir Charles Tupper's letter. Professor Dall describes 
them as "'some very surprising claims" and as "the singular hypothe- 
ses regarding the l)oundarv line which have been emitted by General 
Cameron, of Canada, and which are formulated in the accompanying 
letter to Sir Charles Tupper," And Mr. Bayard refers to them as 
"certain views of Gen. D. K. Cameron, as sul>mitted in the letter of 
Dr. Dawson." Certainly, therefore. Her Majesty's Government made 
no such claim. And if there was any purpose on the part of the 
Canadian Government of making it, such purpose was very studiously 
and successfully disguised. I think it will appear that neither the 
Canadian nor the Imperial Government adopted or put forwai'd this 
claim until after the protocol of May 30. 1SH8. 

If the views of Her Majesty's Government as to the boundary were 
fully stated at the conference held in Washington in February. 181>2, 
with members of the Canadian Cal)inet and the British Minister, and 
a suggestion was submitted for a reference of the qui'stion to arbitra- 
tion, it does not appear of record in the Depai'tment of State, and no 
information of such a proposition is in its possession. No protocol of 
the conferences was made, as it was understood in advance that they 
were to be of an informal and private character; but Secretary Blaine 
submitted to the President a report of some length in regard to the 
PVbruary conference, as did Mr. Foster with respect to the second 
conference in June — l)oth of which were transmitted to Congress and 
])ublished (Senate Ex. Doc. 114, 5'2d Congress, tirst session, pp. 3-13). 
These conferences were brought al)out because of the protests of the 
Canadian Government against a recii)rocity treaty with Newfoundhnul: 
and in the preliminary arrangements for the meeting, while a number 
of subjects were suggested for consideration, the Alaska boundary 
was not mentioned. Almost the entire time was taken up with com- 
mercial (juestions, of which Mr. Blaine makes full report and very 
l)rietly refers to other (piestions, among them ""a connnission totix the 
boundary separating Alaska from British territ(n'y." l)ut there is no 
intimation of so serious a pr()|)osition as an arbitration of that (piestion. 

I am not al)le to i^erceive. theref()i'(», that a proposition on the ])art 
of the British rein"(\sentatives. a>suming it to ha\ e been niad(> at such 



152 CORRESPONDEXCE AFTER ADJOURNMENT 

iui iiifonnal coiitoroiu'c in tlio t(n'in.s quoted hy Your Lordshij). l)ut 
whic'li the .Vnioricau represeutativos refused to eonsidei-, can he 
ret>'arded as raisin<>" or ()peiiin»4' tlie question of the interpretation of 
the treaty now under consichM-ation. Undoubtedly, if that sug-gestion 
had l)een adopted and carried into an executed agi'eenient, it might 
have ])een possible under it to raise l)efore the tribunal any cpiestion 
whatever; but as a rejected proposition in tht^ form stated it opened 
nothing. c(M"tainly not the ([uestion of interpretation of the treaty 
raised b}- Canada's present chiim. 

It is suggested l)y Your Lordsliip tliat the treaty whicli was soon 
afterwards signed by the Secretary of State, Mr. Foster, and the 
British Charge, ^Ir. Herbert, was, and was expressed to be, "with a 
view to the ascertainment of the facts and data necessary to the per- 
manent delimitation of said boundary line in accordance with the spirit 
and intent of the existing treaties;" and that it was "agreed that as 
soon as practica])le after the report of the commission shall have l)een 
received, the}' will proceed to consider and establish the boundaiy line 
in question," These facts and data were to be the result of the sur- 
veys of scientific experts, and no inference can be drawn from this 
convention that there existed any divergence of views as to the inter- 
pretation of the treaty of 1825, especially as to the point now under 
consideration. It l)rought no such claim to the attention of the Amer- 
ican Government. What was postponed to be taken up after the 
reports of the commission should come in, and upon the facts and data 
derived from such reports, was the consideration and establishment 
of the boundary line. And it is now believed that with the light 
thrown u})on the topography of the country by the elaljorate series of 
maps on which the results of the joint survey were eml)odied. if the 
question now raised whether the lisiere runs around the inh^ts or 
across their mouth were decided, the actual location of the t)()undary 
in either view could be easily made by agreement or by tlu' present 
Joint High Commission. 

So far as the records of the State Department disclose, the first 
proposition submitted by the British Government for an arbitration 
of the Alaska boundary was contained in the note of the British 
Ambas-^ador, Sir Julian Fauncefot(\ to Secretary Sherman, wdiich it 
now appears by Your Lordship's despatch he was directed to write 
l)efore Her Majesty's (Tovernment had received the maps referred to. 
It is true that in this note he refers to "'the wide divergence of views 
existing," but when he comes to explain this by particularizing the 
line respecting which his Government is most concerned, he says: 

The great traffic whirh is now attracted to the valley of the Yukon, in the North- 
west Territory, by the recent discovery of gold in that region, timls its way there 
from the coast principally throngh certain i)asses at the head of Lynn Canal, and it 
becomes more innxirtant than ever for jurisdictional purposes that the lioundary, 
especially in that particular locality, should be ascertained and defined. 

This was the last statement of the views of th(^ British Goveriunent 
before the creation of the Joint High Commission, tuid it developed 
the fact that up to that time the divergence now so much (Mn})hasi/ed 
was more ai)parent than real, as it recognized that the line in dispute 
al)out the head of Lynn Canal was in the neighborhood of the passes. 
And this is the case in every instance cited in Your Lordship's despatch 
where the British Government has made any declaration of its views. 
1 have alreadv commented on the Earl of Iddesleigh's letter to Mr. 



OF ,I(»Ix\T HIGH COMMISSION. 153 

Plu'lps ill iSiSti. In ISST-SS, wIkmi the Hi'itisli aiul Aiiicriciin custoiiis 
officials cauio into conHict on the Stikinc Hi\ cr. and Sir Edward Tliorn- 
ton sul)Miitted :i i)r()j)()siti()n for a settlcnuMit. the question was whether 
tlie line in accordanee with the treaty should be drawn across the river 
where the Canadian surveyor had placed it 20 miles from tide water, 
or 30 miles. In 1872. when the ett'ort was made for the creation of a 
commission to mark tiie boundary, it has been shown that there was a 
concurriMice of opinion between the two Governments that the line 
should l)e di'awn across the rivers named, amono" which was the Skoot, 
which at no i)oint was less than 25 miles from tide water. It is clear 
that in every instance when up to the creation of the .Joint Hioh Com- 
mission the British (xovernment has made any reprt^sentation to the 
Government of the United States respectinjj;- tlu> t)oundai'v. it has 
related to the eastern or interior line of contact with Canadian terri- 
tory, either on the rivers or in the mountain passes, and that whatever 
uncertainty or difference of views was manifested arose from the want 
of precise knowledge as to the topography of the country, and did not 
concern the interpretation of the treaty. It is also clear that at no 
time previous to August 8. 1898. has the British Government intimated 
to the Government of the United States a claim to the waters of the 
inlets extending into the strip of mainland set otf to Russia by the 
treaty of 182.). 

Certainh', until such claim was made, and the rights of the United 
States under the treaty in the territory now disputed were challenged, 
there was no occasion for them to refer to the subject of possession, 
occupation, or political control in any correspondence with Great 
Britain; but we maintain that possession, occupation, and political 
control of the territory now disputed w^ere exercised continuously 
from 1825 to the present time by Russia and the United States in suc- 
cession, and such exercise is in its nature claim of title. 

I have refrained in this comuumication from importing any extrane- 
ous considerations and arguments in support of an interpretation of 
the treaty of 1825. but have limited it to what seems to me to be cogent 
And conclusive grounds for the assertion that its interpretation on the 
point presented has not been open in the long period from 1825 to 
ISHS. It is true that these views would be entitled to e(|ual consider- 
ation before atril)unal appointed to interpret the treaty and settle the 
boundary, but the uniform acquiescence and occasional concurrence 
of one ])arty in an interpretation opeidy })roclainu^d and acted on by 
the other seems to ))e a complete answer to the claim that that inter- 
pretation continues open. 

If the British or Canatlian (Jovermnent had at any time desired to 
enter a ])rotest against the claim of the United States, abundant otHcial 
data existed upon which such a protest might have been l)ased. In 
1807, immediately after the sig-ning- t)f the treaty of cession, the Depart- 
ment of Stat(> issued an official map of the Territory of Alaska, on 
which the international boundary was traced, carrying it well beyond 
the sources of the streams emptying into Lynn Canal, and this line 
has been accepted in all the cartographic publications of our (iovern- 
nient since that date. In iss;] the Secretary of State sent to the British 
^Iinist(M' in Washington at his recpiest co})ies of the amnial reports of 
the United States Coast and Geodetic Sur\-ev for 1874 and for other 
succeeding ^-ears. containing- boundary limits of a similar character. 



154 CORRESPONDENCE AFTER ADJoCRNMENT 

The census i)u))licati()ns of isso and IS'.to not only contained a simi- 
lar map. but also an enumeration of the Indian tribes of the Territory,^ 
including those inhabiting- the country al)out the head of the Lynn 
Canal. Many other publications of a similar charactei' miiiht becitinl. 
Her Majesty's Government, however, held its peace durino- the time 
of these publications, and entered no claim to any part of the Lymi 
Canal until after the protocol had been siened in 18US. providing for 
a Joint High Connuission to adjust unsettled Canadian (piestions. 

The first presentation by Her Majesty's Government of the present 
claim of Canada was made in the instructions issued b}' the. Foreign 
Ottice to the British members of that commission, bearing date July 
]9, 181)8. which was received by the Secretary of State on the 8d of 
August in that year. During the conferences of that conmiission, the 
American dcdegates asserted that no such claim had ever been put for- 
ward by the Bi'itish (iovernment previous to the creation of the com- 
mission, and the assertion was not called in ([uestion. Chairman Fair- 
banks, in his letter to Lord Herschell of February 11, lsi>i», referring 
to this claim, used this language: 

C)ur first advices on this subject were received at your hands since our sessions 
began at Quebec. * * * if the views you now present have l)een urged upon 
the attention of the United States at any time prior to the original jirotocol (May .'!0, 
1898), we shall esteem it a favor if you will l)e good enough to direct us to the fact 
and date; further, we shall be pleased if you will advise us at what time since LS25 
the British Government made claim on either Russia or the United States to any 
territorial rights round the upper part of Lynn Canal. 

To this Lord Herschell, in his letter of February 15, 1899, replied: 

The statement that the views of the British Government had not been made known 
till that time (the assembling at Quebec August 23, 1898) is erroneous. The instruc- 
tions given us by the British (iovernment made it perfectly clear that the upi>er ])art 
of the Lynn Canal was claimed as British territory. * * * A copy oi tliese 
instructions was sent on August 1, 1898, to the United States Secretary of State. 

To this letter Chairman F'airbanks, under date of February 1P>, 1899, 
responded as follows: 

It is quite true as stated in your letter of yesterday that the instructions of your 
Government were sent to our Government a few days before the Quebec meeting, 
but they did not in fact come to the attention of the connuission ers until they assem- 
bled at Quebec. You will no doul^t recall the observation made by (Tcneral Foster, 
during your presentation of the British case upon the boundary, tliat the view then 
advanced by you respecting the head of the Lynn Canal was the lirst distinct state- 
ment of the British claim. I do not recall that you seriously disjjuted it. 

Thus the exact punctum temporis of the first assertion of this claim 
of Canada by Her Majesty's Government is fixed. Your Lordship 
says that "the question immediately under discussion is whether or 
not the dispute as to the boundary should be referred to arbitration, 
and it is difficult to understand why the length of time during which 
the rival claims to disputed tei'ritory have been matters of controversy 
should form an element to be taken into consideration in that connec- 
tion." P)ut 1 may be pardoned, at the expense i)erhaps of painfid 
repetition, for saying that the precise question luider iimnediate dis- 
cussion is not whether there should be an arbitration, but. assuming 
both sides to be so disposed, whether the terms and scope of the 
Venezuelan arl)itration, where the arbitrators were left free to wander 
over the whole breadth of territory which had been the subject of con- 
stant and open dispute for more than a centur}-, and to make the 
boundary which they could not find, should be applied to this case, 



OF JOINT HKiH COMMISSION, 155 

wIhm'c a line ti.xcd l)v a treaty in IM!'). a ])laiii iiit('i-i)n'ruti()ii of wliicli 
has 1)0011 unifonnly aiul publicly assorted l)y ono party witliout (jues- 
tioii or prot(^st l>v tho other for seventy-throe years, is at the end of 
that time assaiU'd and a new lino elainied — and whore the one claim or 
the otiun* must l)e riulit — leaving- no middle oround on which to create 
a boundary in the place of the one tixcMl by the treaty. 

1 am sure that these views, oti'ored at Your Lordship's sutii>estion, 
will receive consideration at the hands of Her Majesty's Government. 

I beg to assure Your Lordship that the Government of the Cnited 
States is under no misappj'ohension as to the nature and s(;ope of the 
])roposal for arbitration submitted ])y Her Majest3'''s Government. 
If 1 dwelt almost exclusively in my note of August 9, as I have done 
in this connnunication, "upon tho boundary in tho neighborhood of 
the Lynn Canal."' it was IxM-ause 1 took that as the most striking 
example of all tho inlets and because I regarded the question whether 
the boundary of the treaty runs around them or across their mouths 
as the most important and as the one which keeps us so far apart. 
For,- if this question were once solved, neither the question of the 
Avater boundary described in the treaty as "ascending to the north 
along the channel called Portland Channel"' nor the actual demarkation 
of the land liiu^ by mountain crests or by the ten-league measure 
Avould. T think, bo difhcult to settle either by convention or l)y tho aid 
of the Joint High Commission. While the claim of Her Alajesty's 
Government is not stated with absolute distinctness in your letter of 
Instruction of July V.K ISltS, it was to be inferred from its perusal that 
tho British connnissionors would maintain that under the treaty Great 
Britain should at least be entitled to a portion of Lynn Canal. And 
in the conferences of the commission a map was submitted by them 
(doubtless the one referred to by Y^our Lordship) with a boundary line 
traced upon it setting forth the British claim, which developed a 
divergence of views as to the line, not only in the region of the Fort- 
land Canal, but along the entire mainland of the lisiere. It is there- 
fore distinctly understood that the British proposal of arbitration 
relates not only to the entire line of the strip of territory from Portland 
Canal to ^Nlount St. Klias on the mainland, l)ut that it oml)races in the 
submission tho British claim to a portion of all the inlets extending 
into the mainland and to the greater part of L3'nn Canal. 

1 need not repeat what I said in my note of August 9 as to the 
necessity of excepting from the perils of any arbitration settlements 
made l>v American citizens in good faith under tho authority and 
actual jurisdiction of tho (iovoi'nment of the United States before the 
claim now made on the part of Canada was qvov presented by Her 
Majesty's (Tovornment. Such necessity and the injustice of involving 
them in an arbitration are too ol)vious. 

1 ha\"o tho honor to t)e, with the highest consideration. My Lord. 
Your most obedient humble servant, 

Joseph H. Choate. 
The Most Honoral)lo The Marquis of Salisbury, K. G., 

£tc.. t'te., etc. 



156 CORRESPONDENCE AFTER ADJOURNMENT 

[EiK'lo.sure.] 

The BuiTii^ii Legation, 

The Arlington, 
\V(i.<ifiin(jt(in, February 11, 18S8. 
Hon. T. F. Bayard, 

Sccrcfdvy of State. 
Dear Sir: In supplement of the Ala.skan niap.s l)y Dr. Daw.^on which 1 prt-^^ented 
to you yesterday. 

I now beg your acceptance of the acconipanyinjr cojiy of Dr. Dawson's letter of 
the 7th instant ex])lanatory of his own views on the subject of the ISritisli-Alaskan 
boundary. 

Believe me, dear sir, yours very faithfully, 

Charles Tipper. 



Lord Liinsdoante to Jfr. RaHi-x.^ CJi<ir<je. 

[Confiflential reprint.] 

(No. 158.) Foreign Office, August 18, 1902. 

Sir, The communiciition relative to the Alaska l)ounclary addressed 
to me by the American Ambassador on the 22nd January, li^OO, 
receiv^ed careful attention and a reply had been prepared, when Lord 
Pauncet'ote reported that Mr. Hay had handed to him the draft of a 
Treaty for determining the question l)y arbitration. 

This important proi)osal appeared to denote the conmiencement of 
a new phase in the negotiations, and it seemed to His Majesty's Gov- 
ernment that in the end no useful purpose would be served by present- 
ing-, at such a moment, a rejoinder to the Am))assador\s argument. 

The Government of Canada were accordingly consulted with regard 
to the draft Treaty, and, in March last. Lord Pauncefote, in accord- 
ance with his instructions, presented to Mr. Hay a ^Memorandum 
stating that His jNlajesty's Government, while most anxious to reach a 
solution by means of arl)itration, felt bound to indicate some points on 
which they dissented from the terms of the draft. 

No definite reply was returned to this conuuunication, but His Maj- 
esty's Government were given to understand that the President was 
not disposed to continue negotiations on the l)asis of Mr. Hay's draft. 
It was, therefoie, considered desirable to take advantage of the pres- 
ence in this country of the Governor-General of Canada and of Sir 
Wilfrid Laurier and some of his colleagues to discuss the present posi- 
tion of the question. 

1 took an opportiuiity of mentioning this to the Ameriean Aml)as- 
sador, and, in the course of our conxersation. he reminded me of his 
note of January ll>00, and remarked that, so far as he was aware, no 
reply had ever been made to it. 

As the absence of a rejoinder miglit l)e considered to imply inability 
to meet the arguments advanced it is desirable that I should i)lace on 
record the following ol)servations: — 

His Majesty's Government learned wdth satisfaction from his Excel- 
lency's note that the Govenunent of the United States Avere not averse 
to a reference of the main ditference between Gi'eat Britain and the 
United States to the adjudication of an inde])endent Tribunal, but 
rather contemplated the probability of such a mode of settlement of 
this long-pending controversy. They agree that what the Aml)assador 
•describes as the paramount issue, namely, whether the line should be 



OF JOINT HIGH COMMISSION. 157 

drtnvii lUToss inlets ov round their liesids. can l)est be decided by tiiis 
means, l)ut they are unable to share the view that the particular course 
Avhich the line is to take when the above question has been settled can 
be satisfactorily determined by a joint .survey. A joint survey has 
alread}' been made, and if the dificrenees between the two Govern- 
ments could not be settled bj- the aid of the xevy complete maps 
thereby atiorded, it is scarcely to be anticipated that a fresh survey 
would achieve a more definite result. It seems rather that the '"minor 
or secondary'' thouoh '• hiy-hly important*' questions, namely, the 
exact location of the l)oundary line and its precise distance from the 
coast, are analogous to those involved in the main issue, and can only 
be determined by a similiar process. For instance, assuming- that 
the (|uestion of inh^ts had been decided, and a joint survej' dispatched 
to lay down the boundary in conformity with the provisions of the 
Treaty of 1825, which prescribes that the line shall follow the 
sunnuit of the mountains situated parallel to the coast, the British 
surveyors wouM naturally interpret this to mean the summit 
of the mountains nearest the coast, while it is possible that the 
Ignited States' surve^'ors might contend for the highest range. 
How could this point be decided^ Yet upon the decision would 
depend the possession of part of the town of Skagway, even suppos- 
ing the ownership of the heads of inlets was decided adversely to the 
British contention. Again, if there should be a break in the moun- 
tain range which it is decided to follow, should the line across the 
l)reak be drawn parallel to the coast-line between the same degrees of 
latitude as the tei'iuinals of the break or parallel to the general trend 
of the coast-line. Controversies over these points, and others of a 
similar character, the least of which might turn out to be of far-reach- 
ing inqiortanc(\ would, it is to )»e feared, arise, and it is scarcely to be 
expected that surveyors in the held could reach an agreement upon 
them, nor, indeed, would it be expedient to allow them such latitude. 
AVith regard to the question relative to the heads of inlets. Mr. ( "lioate 
observed that of the two absolutely distinct interpretations which have 
been presented by Great Britain and the United States, '"one or the 
other is right, and can and should be ascertained and determined so to 
])e to the exclusion of the other." The same argument is equally 
applicable to many occasions of difi'erence which surveyors sent to lay 
down the l)oundary would encounter. For these reasons His Majest3''s 
Government are of opinion that all questions which depend for their 
solution upon the interpretation of the Treaty should be simultane- 
ously referr(Hl to arbitration, to determine the true meaning of that 
instrument, and this, not merely with regard to the Lynn Ganal or 
any other particular point, but in respect of the whole line, through- 
out its entire length, from the southernmost point of Prince of Wales 
Island to Mount St. Elias. What is desired by l)oth Governments is 
the termination of the dispute, and this appears to be the only way in 
which it can be satisfactorily and ]iermanently settled. 

The objection recorded by Mr. Choate to the application of the \'ene- 
zuela Tivaty to the adjustment of the pr(\sent controversy se(Mus to 
be directed against the provision for compromise which that arrange- 
ment affords, and the latitude giviMi to the Tribunal constituted under 
it: but. for the reasons which have been already adduced in Loixl 
Salislniry's despatch of the 14th Octobei-, 18iH«, His Majesty's Govern- 
ment still consider that the circumstances of the Alaska boundary 
26020— Ai' 11 



158 cokrespondencp: after adjournment 

controversy arc such as to warrant an unqualified submission to an 
inii)artial 'rril)unal. and it was solely with the desire to meet the 
ol)jcctions of the rnited States" Kepresentatives that the British mem- 
bers of the fJoint Iliiih Commission of lSiKS-l)y proposed to allow that 
continued adverse j)ossession should be recognized and full regard had 
to the equities of the case. With this object in view, it appeared to 
them that the Venezuela Treaty oti'ei-cd a convenient and suitable pre- 
cedent. Accordingly, they proposed arbitration on those lines; but 
His JNIajesty's (lovernment arc not wedded to a particular formula, 
and are prepared to consider any reasonable modifications to the rules 
suggested (not inconsistent with finality of decision) which the United 
States may consider the special circumstances of the case to call for. 
Towards such questions as the composition of the Tribunal and its 
organization, as well as the terms of reference. His Majesty's Go com- 
ment have, with the qualifications above mentioned, adopted no fixed 
attitude, nor have they declined to reconsider the original proposal of 
the British side of the Joint High Commission, which, at the same 
time, they conceive to be eminently fair to the United States. 

But while they are thus prepared to acquiesce in every reasonable 
concession, it would be difficult to include in that category without 
some reciprocal concession or compensation the stipulation contained 
in the last paragraph of the Ambassador's note, to the effect that all 
settlements made l)y American citizens in the disyjuted territory under 
the authority of their Government up to a very recent period shall 
remain the property of the United States, The main question in this 
controversy is that which involves the ownership of the heads of inlets 
in general, and of the Lynn Canal in particular. That Canal derives 
its present importance from the fact of its forming the natural 
approach to the gold-bearing regions of the Canadian interior, which 
are accessil)le by sea in those latitudes through the ports of Dyea. 
Skagway, and Pyramid Harbour. The valleys i)i the rear of these 
ports are the only known avenues of apj^roach to the interior which 
come down to the Lynn Canal, and ai'c consequently the measure of 
its value. Their ownership must therefore constitute, in the view of 
the United States" Government, the chief object of the arl)itration. 
There cannot be a doubt that the proposal of the United States' Pleni- 
potentiaries at the meeting of the eloint High Conuuission, renewed 
by Mr. Choate, to except from the ''perils of any arbitration all 
towns or settlements on tide- water settled under the authority of the 
United States and under the jurisdiction of the United States at the 
date of this Treaty"'' was put foi'ward with the object of securing 
Dyea, Skagway, and Pyramid Harbour, for th(\v are the only settle- 
ments on tide-water that can possibly be embraced by the dehnition. 
The suggested reser\'ation therefore seems equi\alent to a declaration 
on the part of the United States' Government that they will accept 
arbitration only on condition that the principal objects of the refer- 
ence shall be theirs in any event, and that Great Britain will so cove- 
nant l)efore the parties go into Court. 

The proposal seems ])ased on the assum])tion that the setthMuents at 
the head of the Lyiui Canal were established undei- the authority of 
the United States })rior to the announcement of any claim to the terri- 
tory in ([uestion on the part of Great Britain. So confidently is the 
soundness of this contention assumed, that several times in his Excel- 
lency's note it is emphasized by the express inclusion of Canada, as 



OF JOINT HIOH COMMISSION. 159 

di.stiiu't from the mother-countrv. in the charoe of lia\ iiio- said oi- done 
iiothino- prior to 181>S to indicate her ehiini. 

1 will not recapitulate the arg'unuMits to the contrary which ha\'e 
been previously advanced. Thei'e is one point, however, witii which 
I nuist deal in some detail. Mr. Choate su>•■o■(^^ted that too nuu-h 
wei^i'ht has been oiven to Mi'. Dawson's letter of the 7tli Februar}'. 
1888. laid before the Fisheries Connnission of that year, and argues 
that the meetinos between that gvutleman and Professor Dall were 
wholly informal; that neither possessed any deleg-ated authority what- 
ever, and that their o})iiHons could not be held to commit anyl)0(ly but 
themselves. While it is true that the conferences between ^Messrs. 
Dawson and Dall were informal, these gentlemen were experts spe- 
cially selected by their respective Governments, and their views must 
therefore be held to be those of the (Jovernments which they repiV- 
sented. That this was so understood at the time is evident from the 
map (No. 1(3) which accompanies the Reports of both experts sul>mitted 
to Congress by President Cleveland on the 2nd ^larch, 1889. 

That map is a reproduction of one prepared in Ottawa for the pur- 
poses of the Conference of 1887-88. As originally published it 
show'ed no boundary-lines, but upon a few copies lines were drawn in 
ink by Dr. Dawson, showing (1) a boundary-line as given on the 
Uinted States' Coast Survey Map of Alaska, 1884; (2) a boundary-line 
approximately following the summits of mountains parallel to the 
coast, in presumed conformity with the text of the Convention of 1825, 
as understood l)y the Canadian Government; (3) one of the conven- 
tional lines discussed during the conferences, and referred to in the 
l^rinted correspondence betw'een Dr. Dawson and Sir C. Tupper, 
which the latter laid before the Commission. It was not possible to 
draw the second conventional line, as this depended upon geographical 
details not determined at the time. A note upon the face of the map 
states that the line from the United States' Coast Survey ]\Iap "dis- 
regards both the Treaty reference to mountains and that to the ocean 
coast." A copy of the lithographed map. with the lines and notes 
above referred to, was sui)plied to Professor Dall. and is reproduced 
in fdc-x'niiih' as Map No. itJ above referred to. 

That the line following the mountains parallel to the coast, crossing 
all the larger inlets, must at the time have been accepted as endiodying 
the Canadian view of the meaning of the Treaty of 182.5 is shown by 
the addition ])v the Ignited States' authorities to the fac-^hnih' (at the 
to}i and outside the border of the map) of the words •' Dawson's 
Canadian ^lap. 1887, showing conventional Ww^^ p}'op<>t<tdhy OdkkUi.''^ 
This map, as originally prepared, and also with Di'. Dawson's additions, 
was pul>lished i)y the Cnited States' (Tovernment and subnntted to 
Congress. 

The statement by Mr. Choat(= that the meetings between Messrs. 
Dawson and Dall were not held during the sittings of the Joint High 
Connnission of 1888 seems to have been made under a misapprehen- 
sion. An examination of the Protocols of the Conmiission discloses 
that on the Uth flanuarv, 1888, Mr. Chamberlain suggested that Di". 
Dawson and Profc^ssor Dall should meet and endinwor to agree uj)on 
some detiiute suggestions for the consideration of the Conference. 
On the 23rd January. Mr. Bayard concurred in this suggestion, and 
on the 8iith it was arranged that Dr. Dawson shoidd be sununoned liy 
telegraph. On the 2nd Fel)ruarv, Mr. Chamberlain announced that 



160 CORRESPONDENCE AFTER ADJOURNMENT 

Dr. Hawson had arrivcMl at Washington, and Mr. Bayard informed the 
Conforeiico that the neccs-sarv arrang-onicnts would l)e made at onee 
for him to meet Professor Dall. On the 7th Fehniarv, Mr. Chamher- 
hiin i-eported to the Commission that Dr. Dawson and Professor Dall 
had not made any prog-ress on the question of the Alaska })oundary. 
The Connnission sat on the 2nd, 3rd, 6tli, and 7th Februar}'. The 
Conference between ^Messrs. Dall and Dawson were therefore held 
during- the sittings of the Joint High Commission. The inference that 
Sir C. Tupper dissociated himself from Dr. Dawson, because in the 
former's note of transmission he referred to the hitter's views as 
"his'' — /. c/., Dr. Dawson's — '"own," appears to be based upon a mis- 
conception of Sir C. Tupper's meaning. 

Bearing- in mind that on the same day on which Dr. Dawson's letter 
was written ^Ir. Chamberlain reported to the Conference that the 
two experts had failed to come to any agreement, it is not surprising 
that Sir C. Tupper should allude to Dr. Dawson's views as "his own." 
Jiieaning thereby his own, not as distinct from those of the -Govern- 
ment which he was there to represent, but from those of his fellow- 
expert with whom he could not reach any agreement. They were his 
iiidividual'views in the sense that they were not shared by Professor 
Dall. These view\s were known to the Government of which Sir C. 
Tupper was a men)bei- before Dr. Dawson was sunnnoned to AVash- 
ington. If the Canadian Government were not in accord with them 
it is scarcely likely that he would have been selected to confer with 
the American expert, nor is it probable that Sir C. Tupper would 
have placed them before Mr. Ba3"ard without, at any rate, some dis- 
tinct and explicit disavowal of responsibility for them. Moreover, as 
His Majesty's Government can confidently state, it is not the case, as 
suggested that Sir C. Tupper was in no mood to adopt General Cam- 
eron's o})inions on the subject of the Alaska l)oundarv, for it was 
at the instance of Sir C. Tupper, at the time High Commissioner 
for Canada, that General Cameron was selected by the Secretary of 
State for the Colonies to investigate and report upon this question of 
the Alaska boundary. Sir C. Tupper, in the year 188S, attached 
great weight to General Cameron's views on the subject of the Alaska 
boundary, and, in a letter addressed to the Secretary of State for the 
Colonies on the 1st August, 18S8, he entirely concurred in protesting- 
against any attempt on the part of the United States to disregard 
Canada's claim to the heads of inlets. He fortitied the protest of the 
Canadian (lovernment by a Minnorandum from (uMieral Cameron's 
pen, of which a co]iy is herewith inclosed. 

Attention nuist also be given to the Message of the President of the 
United States, transmitting these Reports and jSIaps of Dr. Dawson to 
Congress, and to the Memorandum of his S(H-retarv of State, which 
accompanied them, in which Mr. Bayard expresses the opinion that 
these documents are "of value as bearing upon a subject of .great 
international importance, and should be put in shape for public 
information." 

It appears to His Majesty's Government that the President thus 
l)ul)licly ac(|uainted the people of the I'^nited States of Canada's claim 
to the heads of the inlets more than eight years ))ef()re anything in the 
nature of settlement was begun at the head of the Lynn Canal, for 
beyond a few trilling acts of occupation on the part of private indi- 
viduals, at periods separated by considerable intervals of time, no set- 



OP JOINT iihtH commission. 1()1 

tli'iuoiit was iittem|)tod in those localities until tlic niiiiiiit:' ru>li to the 
Klondike in the ><prinu- of 1SJ»7. 

It is dcsii'al)le, before concluding- this despatch, to allude to the 
statement in Mr. Choate's coninnuiication that the I'nited States* (iov- 
erniiient are not aware that at the Conference held in Washinoton in 
Fe))ruary 181>2 the Canadian Ministers proposed, as recorded in Lord 
SalisburVs despatch of the Uth October, 18119, -'that a reference to 
some impartial authority ))0 made 1)V Great Britain and the United 
States for the purpose of ascertainino- and decidino- finally the true 
boundary, regard l)einLi- had to the Treaties relating- to the subject, 
and likewise to the case which may l)e presented ])y either Govern- 
ment, and to the testimony which may be adduced as to the physical 
features and conditions of that country.'' 

The accurac}" of this record is confirmed by the ]\Iinutes of the pro- 
ceedings of this Conference, signed by the Canadian Delegates and 
concurred in by Her ^Majesty's Minister at Washington. These ^lin- 
utes, which were published by order of the Canadian Parliament in 
the Sessions of 18!»2 and 18!K3. also record that on the iL'th February. 
1892. ''the various contentions relating to the ))oundary were then 
explained." thereby indictiting that the existence of a divergence 
between the views of the respective Governments as to the true mean- 
ing of the Treaty was recognized at that date, and that each Govern- 
ment was acquainted with the claim of the other. 

The main facts in support of the British claim have alreadj^ been 
fully set forth in previous communications, and it seems unnecessary, 
as Ihave before said, to repeat them; but His Majesty's Government 
desire to place on record the foregoing supplementary observations in 
further elucidation of some points of their contention, and in disproof 
of the suggestion that neither the Imperial nor the Canadian (xovern- 
ment adopted or put forward the British claim to the heads of the 
inlets " until after the Protocol of the 3<ith May. 1898."* 

You are authorized to read this despatch to Mr. Hay. and to hand 
him a cop\' of it should he so desire. 
I am etc. 

Lansdowne 

A. S. Kaikes, Esq. 



[Iiu'losure.J 
^f(')n()r(nl<lu)ll. 

By way of Lynn Canal, of wliich the entrance is abont 1.35° west longitude, 58° 
20' iiortli latitude, is at present the only ))racti(al ri)Ute to gold mines heing worked 
on trilmtaries of the Telly River, some in British and some in I'nited States' territory. 

The northern extremity of Lynn Canal forks— the western and i-astern branches 
l)eing formed respectively l)y the inflow of the Chilkat and Chilkoot I^ivers. 

The route hitherto foirowe<l by miners entering the coinitry has been by the valley 
of the Chilkoot — across tiie height of lands called Perrier or Payer jxirtage. 

The ascent to the portage is extremely tedious, but once overcome, there is gained 
navigal>le water connected witii the Pelly River and the Yukon River. Lieutenant 
Schwatka noted Perrier portage as the point at which the boundary lietween Lnited 
States' and British territory passed, tiie I'nited States' territory lying seaward, the 
British territory inland. Lieutenant Schwatka had been employe(\ to make a recon- 
naissance in Alaska; l)ut finding that country most accessible through Lynn Canal, 
continued his exploration down the Pelly River in British territory until it passed 
the meridian of 141° west longitude iiito I'nited States' territory. Lieutenant 
Schwatka's Report was pnl)lished as a Congressional Paper. 



162 CORRESPONDENCE AFTER ADJOURNMENT 

It is not known tliat tlu-rc has ln'cn any other otlicial claini to I'mier Pass as the 
point at which tlie international l)onn(lary rnns. 

Fnjni the ocean entrance to l^ynn Canal, the head of l)oat navi<,fation up the Chil- 
koot is about 80 miles; from this point to Perrier Pass is somewhat in excess of oO 
miles, or 10 marine leagues. 

Lynn Canal has water-ways of less than 6 miles in hreaittli at no great distance 
from its entrance. 

It is contended on the Cana<lian side that the 10 marine leagues given as themaxi- 
nium breadth of the United States' coast territory in the second subsection of xVrticle 
IV, Husso-British Convention of 1825, may not be measured from any point within 
an inlet not exceeding 6 miles in breadth, and that, consequently, it is not, under 
any circumstances, possible that the international boundary can be anywhere so far 
inland as Perrier Pass. 

To avoid the inconvenience of the ascent to the Perrier jiortage, a diverging route 
called White Pass, a little to the eastward of Perrier Pass route, has recently been 
explored. 

Speculators interested in the gold nunes in the interior, and in transit of miners 
and their goods have for some time had their attention turne<l to the desirability of 
opening uj) the White Pass route. 

The greater part, if not all, of this divergent line is, it is contended, within British 
territory; and as affecting the jirinciples which are ultimately to determine the 
whole of the British Alaskan boundary, as well as seriously affecting a British route 
whicli may hereafter, with advantage of the greatest imporance, be opened through 
the Taku River Valley, it is submitted that the United States' contention should be 
emphatically protested against. 



Mr. llm/tn Jlr. W/uf>. 

No. 1081.] December 18, 1902. 

Henry White, Esquire, etc., etc.. etc., 

London. 
Sir: I have to reqitcst you to procure at 3'our earh' comenience and 
forward to the Department t\YO copies of the Report described as 
follows: 

[North American, No. 119.J 

Report on the location of the British Alaskan Boundarv under the Anglo-Russian 
Convention of 1825 by Col. D. R. Cameron, R. A. C. M. (t. 
Coloni.vIj Office, September, 1886. 



I am, sir, your obedient servant. 



John Hay. 



Mr. WJdte to Mr. Ihnj. 

No. 1037.] American Embassy, 

London ., J<(nuary '23rd, 1903. 
SiK, Referring- to your Instruction No. 1081 of the 18th idtimo I 
have th(> honour to enclose herewith the copy of a Note from the For- 
eio-n Odice statino- that Colonel Cameron's Report on the Alaska 
I>()undary was printed contidcntially for Hi.s Majesty's Government 
and that they are unal)le to connntuiicate it to us. 

I have the honour to b«>, Sir, your obedient Servant, 

Henry White. 
The Hon. John Hay, cScc. l^c, t^c, 

Secretary of State. 



OK JOINT HKJII COMMISSION. 163 

[Eiiclosiu-L'] 

Mr. VHIin-slo Mr. Wlnfr. 

Foreign Offkk, Juinunij JJikI, 1903. 
SiK, I tvlVrrt'il to the proper Department of His Majesty's Government your note 
of the olst Deeemher last, a.'^kint: to l)e supplied witli copies of a Heport on the 
Alaska Houndary by Colonel 1). K. Cameron. 

I now have the honour to inform you that this report has only been printed eon- 
tidentially for the information of His Majesty's Government, and I regret therefore 
that I am not able to comply with your recjuest. 
I have the honour to be, etc. 

(For the Manjuess of J.ansdowne) 

F. H. VlLLIEKS. 

II. White, Es(p, itc, 6cv., &.i-. 



EXTRACTS FROM DEBATES IN THE CANADIAN PAR 

LIAMENT. 



BOUNDARY OF ALASKA. 

[T'y't'/// Dehates, Tloiixe of Commonx^ Dominion of Cunada^ sct<-no')i 1879, 
Vol. /, 2)' 2-30, March 10, 1879.] 

MOTION FOR PAPERS. 

Mr. DeCosnios moved for a cop}' of a memorandum of the circum- 
stances that led to the conclusion of the Convention between Great 
Britain and Russia, of February 1825; also, a copy of the Convention, 
if any, between Great Britain and the L'nited States, of February, 
1835, mentioned in Sessional Papers, 1878, 125, pao-es '^ and 30; also, 
a copy of the most reliable maps and charts of the Territory' of Alaska, 
that existed in 1825, and that have been made since, including- Russian, 
British and American maps and charts; and also, any reports that 
may have been made to the Government respecting- the Alaskan 
boundary, that have not yet been published. He said that, as it had 
been suggested, by the Hon. the Minister of Pul)lic Works, that some 
reports had l)een made respecting the Alaskan boundary, it would l)e 
as well to include them in the return. He had heard it stated that 
the United States Government intended to make some provision for 
the government of Alaska and to ask our Government to join them 
in defining the l)oundary between Alaska and British Columbia. 
Unfortunately for our country, the Imperial Government had neglected 
taking care of the interests of the western portion of this Dominion. 
When the Treaty of Washington was negotiated, in 1871, we were 
only allowed the right of free navigation in two or three of the rivers 
flowing from British Columl)ia through Alaska. Under the Conven- 
tion of 1825 with Russia, we had the right to navigate all the rivers 
that ran out of our territory and through Alaska, but by the act of 
Russia in 18(37, in transf(>rring the territory of Alaska to the United 
States, we lost the right of navigating the rivers. He thought the 
Joint High Commission at Washington might have included all the 
rivers the same as the Convention of 1825, although he did not 
blame the Commission for not having done so, because anv nation 
might abrogate a treaty by its own act, oi- bv a new treat}'. 
But Alaska was now becoming of some im}K)rtance from its furs and 
minerals. Several steamers were running lietween Stikine, British 
Coluni))iu and Alaska, conveying from 2.iK)<i to 3.<MI0 passengers yearly. 
Conse([uently, they ought to have all the information they could get 
respecting this l)oundary (juestion. He had found that the maps pub- 
lished with regard to Alaslca were very imperfect. Some time ago he 
had seen a map in the office of the MinisttM- of Public Works, which 

164 



EXTRACTS FROM DEBATES IN THE CANADIAN PARLIAMENT. 1H5 

.showed that the Ki\rr Yukon run into the Arctic Ocean, whereas it 
discharged into Hehrin*>'s Sea. an arm of the Pacilic Ocean. He asked, 
in his motion, that the Kussian maps, as well as the British and Ameri- 
can, should be brought down, lie ludieved that the AVestern Union 
Telegraph Company, when exploring that country for telegraph pur- 
poses had published a map giving a great deal more correct informa- 
tion respecting the geography of the country than the other maps, and 
he believed that the interior of Northern British Columbia, as well as 
Alaska, would l)e found nuich better laid down by the topographical 
stall' of the Western L'nion Company than l)y anybody else. How- 
ever, he asked that the papers might be brougiit down, and the infor- 
mation placed before the House in advance of any negotiations that 
might take place with the United States Government with respect to 
Alaska. 

Mr. Mills said he had no doubt the Hon. the Minister of the Interior 
had looked into this question, and was able to say if it was possible to 
bring down the maps that had been asked for. He (Mr. Mills) believed 
it would take a good deal of time, and some expense would l)e incurred 
in preparing all that the motion asked for. nor did he think the docu- 
ments would throw any additional light upon the subject. He supposed 
the correspondence would include the memorandum of Sir Charles 
Napier, relating to the Treaty of 1825, between Great Britain and 
Russia. There was no treaty, he believed, concluded between the 
United States and Great Bri ain, at that time. However, there was 
correspondence between thetAmerican Government and that of St. 
Petersburg, upon this subject, because the Territory upon the Pacific 
coast at that point was claimed by the three Powers, (irreat Britain, 
America and Ilussia. If the lion, gentleman obtained the correspond- 
ence, he would see that negotiations had taken place, in the tirst instance, 
between the Governments of St. Petersl)urg and Great Britain, who 
failed to arrive at any settlement of the matter: that ultimateh' the 
points in dispute between the two Governments were disposed of in 
the Treaty of 1825. which gave to liussia a narrow strip of territory 
upon the coast south of Mount St. Elias, extending as far south as 
Portland Channel, upon the express condition that all the rivers flowing 
through this Russian territory should l)e open to navigation l)v Great 
Britain, for all purposes whats'oe\er. 

It would be seen, ])y the correspondence, that both Governments 
claimed the sovereignty of the soil, that Great Britain ceded to Rus- 
sia the territory which she claimed, but. at the same time, retaining 
an equal right, or an equal sovereignty, in the rivers flowing through 
this relinquished territory to the ocean; so that these rivers were not 
only open to Great Britain for the purpose of ordinary commercial 
navigation, but were open to the people of Great Britain, and to any 
persons who might settle in the interior country, subjects of Her 
^lajesty. for any purposes of navigation whatsoever. It was under 
this treaty that the British Columbian authorities undertook to take 
]Mr. Martin from the northern part of British Columl)ia down to 
Stikine River, with the view of im])risoning him at \'ictoria for the 
offence for which he had been convicted, TIk^ correspondem-e would 
also show that the Law ( )ilicers of the Crown had, in answer to a com- 
munication dated the Idth August last, from the Colonial Secretary. 
Lord Carnarvon, expressed the opinion that the people of Canada had 
lost the rights which they ])ossessed under th(> Treaty of St. Peters- 



166 p:xtka(ts from debates 

tmro-, l)y the ncii-otiatioiis Avliich took place at Wasliiiiu'toii in ISTI. 
and l)y the treaty hy which tliose iie*>"otiations were eoncludecl. 

The hon. ^eiitleniaii (Mr. DeC'osmos) would see that .statement liix'en 
in a coinmnnieation l)y the Law OtHcers of the Crown, and quoted hy 
the then Minister of Justice. Tliev said that, although Great Britain 
did not withdraw ai^y riuiit. nor could she have lost any rioht. ])y any 
neootiations between Russia and the United States in ISCT. because 
Russia, in conveying- the territory of Ahiska to the United States, 
could not convey to the United States any greater interest than she 
actually possessed, and she could not convey to the United States the 
interest that the (iovernnient or tln^, Crown of Crreat Hi'itain had in 
the navigation of these rivers, because the_v stated that that could not 
be done without the consent of Great Britain. But they further 
advised, upon this ground, that, because the Treaty of St. Petersburg- 
had b?en abrogated hy the Treaty of Wshington, the Government of 
Canada should, at the earliest moment, release ]\Ir. Martin. The hon. 
gentlenrin would see, therefore, that, if the people on the western 
coa-it were now in a worse position than they were before, it was due 
to the negotiations which took place at ^^'ashing■ton, and which were 
consununated l)y the celebrated treaty known as the Treaty of ^Vash- 
ington. 

]VIr. DeCosmos said he could not agree with the hon. gentleman 
(Mr. Mills) when he said that the people of the Pacific coast were not 
in as good a position now as formerly; and that it was due to the 
Treaty of Washington of 1871. The Russian Government, in 1867, 
by selling the Territory of Alaska to the United States, abrogated the 
Convention of 1825. So far as the objection raised b^^ the hon. gen- 
tleman, even supposing the Convention negotiated in 1825 still existed, 
it would l)e a matter of doubt whether it would be within the terms of 
that treaty to use the Stikine and other rivers except for purposes 
of commerce. He contended that the negotiators of the Washington 
Treaty, 1871, neglected their duty. 

Sir John A. Macdonald said there were two opinions on that sub 
ject. Perhaps the liest international lawyer in P^ngland, Mr. Mon- 
tague Barnard, a mem])er of the Conuuission at Washington, and Lord 
Tenterden, who had taken part in sonH> of the most important treaties 
that England had negotiated, both werV> united in the opinion that, by 
the transfer of Alaska, the etlect of the ti-eaty of 1S25 was gone. It 
was also theo})inion of ]Mr. Gladstone's Government, and if that opin- 
ion were correct, the fact that the three rivers had been put into the 
treaty could do no harm. If the papers could be brought down within 
a reasonable time, they would be brought down. 

Mr. Mills said that he had observed that it was very strange these 
opinions were not communicated to the British Aml)assador at Wash- 
ington. He had met Sir Pxlwaixl Thornton, wdio, he knew, was not 
aware of the exist(M)ce of any such opinions. 

Sir John A. Macdonald said he could not tell what conversation the 
hon. member for l^othwell (Mr. Mills) had with Sir Edward Thornton; 
but it was a matter for him whetluM- he should repeat that conversation 
or not. 

Motion ac/reed to. 



IN THK CANADIAN IWKLl A M KXT. 167 

yroni till (IrlxlfrX nf the S, /it/fr of ('(ln(l<ht. Ili f/i< srcnud SCSSKH of fJiK 
Sel'f'iit/i /'(III idunnf />/■' ( '(iiKiiJd. 

'PiirusDAY, Ffhi'iiary 2ofIi, lHf)2. 

[Kxtruct fi'din tlio Spuocli irom tlic Throm-.] 

* -Jt -X- * * * * 

The ineetin.ii' which had htM-n iuianucd with the Tiiitcd States Gov- 
ernment for a day in Octoher hist, for an infoimal discussion on the 
extension of trade between the two countries, and on other international 
matters recjuirino- adjustment, was post]!one(l at their request. But, 
in compliance with a more recent intimation from that (iovernment, 
three of my Ministers proccMnled to Washington, and conferred ^vith 
representatives of the Administration of the United States on those 
subjects. An amicable understanding was arrived at respecting the 
steps to be taken for the establishment of the boundary of Alaska; 
and for reciprocity of services in cases of wreck and salvage. Arrang-e- 
ments were also reached for the appointment of an International Com- 
mission to report on the regulations which may be adopted l)y the 
United States and Canada for the prevention of destructive methods 
of tishing and the pollution of streams, and for establishing uniformity 
of close seasons, and other means for the preservation and increase of 
fish. A valuable and friendly interchange of views respecting other 
important matters also took place. * * * (See Debates of the 
Senate of Canada, pp. 3 and 4.) 

Monday, Fehrvnry '29th, 1892. 

[Extract from speech on the motion to adopt the Address to be presented to the (Jovemor General in 
reply to the speech from the Throne.] 

Hon. Mr. Scott." * * * We do not know what happened the 
other day at Washington, because the ^Ministers have not advised us. 
They simply state that something did occur with reference to the 
extension of trade between the two countries, but the Speech is per- 
fectly silent as to what th(> result was. It is quite true that an amica- 
ble understanding was arrived at respecting the steps to be taken for 
the establishment of the boundary of Alaska. It was not necessary 
to go to ^^'ashington to discuss that. The question has been discussed 
in des])atches for twenty years. There was no dispute as to the bound- 
ary of Alaska. 

Hon. Mr. Abbott — Hear, hear. 

Hon. Mr. Scott. My hon. friend says ''hear, hear." It was settled 
in the treaty of 1825. The line was defined. l)ut not marked out. 
There is no doubt a dispute as to where it goes. It conunences at 
Portland channel and extends along the sununit of the mountains, 
where those mountains do not extend more than l(» marine leagues 
inwards, and if they are more than 1<> marine leagues, then lo leagues 
is the limit to a certain meridian, and from that point it is a straight 
line to the frozen ocean. That is nractically the position of it, and 
the only reason that it was not settled twenty years ago was that the 
expense was too heavy. The United States at one time proposed a 

«"Hon. Richard William Scott, Senator; Secretary of State of Canada since 1896; 
* * * Commissioner of Crown Lan<ls, lS72-7:^; aiti)ointed to Senate. 1S7;>; Secre- 
tary of State, 1873-78; Leader of ( Jpiiosilion in Senate, lS7iMi(;/' ' Frnm "Who' 
Who, 1903, London, 1903. ) 



1()S EXTRACTS FROM DP:BATES 

voto for the purpose aiul it was then said tiiat it would cost ahout two 
uiiliion dollars. Tho population was siuall. and thov did not fool 
warranted at the time in making that particular survey. It is purely 
a (juestion of survey. The terms of the treaty are not disputed. I 
think as a matter of compromise at the time it was agreed hetAveen the 
two countries that we should njark off the line where it crossed tho 
Stikine and other riv(M-s, but it w^as going to cost too nuich entirely 
to run out this particular ))oundarv. That, I think, is what actually 
occurred. I)ecause J rememl)er something of it m^'self. iV number 
of despatches ]jassed l)etween the two countries twenty years ago. 
Kow'. today I see l)y the American returns that the jwpulation of 
Alaska is nearly 0,000 whites and some 33,000 Indians. 1 do not know 
what the population of our own North-West, and British Columbia 
adjoining that, is, but it cannot be very much, and it is doubtful if 
there is an}^ necessity to define the boundary, now, unless it is to 
remove a certain degree of friction. To my mind, the natural way 
l)etween two friendly countries would be to arrange a conventional 
boundary until the population on the one side or on the other was 
sufficient to warrant the necessity of positively making cut this par- 
ticular line. No doubt it is a very expensive l)oundarv. The expen- 
sive part is, of course, the fringe of land that runs along the coast up 
to the particular part where the meridian runs, because it is entirely 
a matter of cost; 1 have never heai'd of any dispute as to the interpre- 
tation to be given to the treaty, because the treaty is plain and speaks 
for itself. I have the terms of it under mj" hand here this moment, 
if it is desirable to read them. I do not suppose it is; it cannot ])e 
disputed. * * * (See Debates of the Senate of Canada, i)p. 14 
and 15.) 



From Dehates^ FIousc <>f Chiiiiiioois, Dominion of Canada^ 189S, Vol. /, 
jK 405, Fehrminj 11, 1898. 

Sir Charles Hihbert Tupper. Before the Orders of the Day 
are called, I would like to call the attention of the Government to an 
important telegram pu])lished in the ^Montreal '"Gazette" of this day. 
in regard to two im])ortant sut)iects that have Vieen mentioned in the 
House, namely, the Yukon Railway Bill and the <|uestion of coasting 
regulations. 

* -x- * * * * * 

May I also ask the (TOvernmcMifs attention to what it seems to me 
would be of great assistance in the debate of the railway Bill, and 1 
ask the particular attention of the Minister of the Interior, wdio is 
familiar with the sultject and understands how far in coimection with 
the present negotiations regarding the boundary it is ))ossible to com- 
ply with my suggestion, ^ly suggestion is that upon a copy of the 
map already prescMited to the Mouse there should be ])laced indications, 
for instance, red marks would do, showing the positions in the dis- 
puted territory that the United States at present occupy by customs 
or other officers. 1 think that would be quite sufficient. Of course, 
I do not know how far the Govei'nment would l)e warranted in mark- 
ing what is disputed territory, nevertheless I think it would n(^t con- 
found any proper conception to mark the points they have already 
occupied in the territory with customs officers. 

The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Sir Louis Davies). It 



IN THE CANADIAN PAKLIAMENT. 169 

initilit !)(' ii-; liai'd to liiul the disputed boiuidurv as tho real houiid- 
arv. 

Sir CiiAKLKS Hii5i5KRT TuiTKR. 1 do iiot pposs for any inii)ro|)ricty 
being- connnitted. but I think this can he done, that on the map could 
be marked the points the United States occupy by officers of any cliar- 
acter, customs, or otherwise. 

The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sikton). First, with respect 
to the (juestion asked as to the boundary line. The difficulty arises at 
three points particularly. First, in the teri-itory ai'ound th(^ Stikine 
River. There is, however, a provisional boundary, which was ruu 
some years ago aud provisionally adopted by both (Tovernments. 

jNlr. Foster. How far inland is that:? 

The Minister of the Interior. 1 scaled it on the map and from 
the mouth of the river it is about twenty-two miles — not twenty-two 
miles ill a straight line, but that distance following the windings of 
the river. There is therefore no present difficulty there. Our officers 
have been sent there for the purpose of establishing a post just within 
the provisional line of the Stikine River, and they have l)een furnished 
with maps showing the provisional boundary line. 

Sir Charles Tuiter. When was that provisional boundai-y line 
established i 

The Minister of the Interior. Speaking from recollection, it 
was some time in 1S7() or 18TT. Difficulties also arose in the White 
Pass, behind the village of Skagway, and at Chilkat Pass behind Dyea. 
I believe our contention is that Skagway and Dyea are realh' in Cana- 
dian territory, but as the United States have had undisputed posses- 
sion of them for some time past, we are precluded from attempting to 
take possession of that territory. 

Sir Charles Hihrkrt Tuiter. May I be excused for saying that I 
do not think the hon. Minister meant to sa}'^ '"undisputed possession". 

The Minister of the Interior. There have been no protests made. 
It must be taken as undisputed when there has been no protest made 
against the occupation of that territoiy by the United States. 

Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper. A claim, I suppose, was made and 
adhered to^ 

The Minister of the Interior. There is nothing in the records 
to show that any protest has Ixhmi made — an unfortunate^ thing for us, 
])ut it is a fact. I do not know that that particularly atiects the dis- 
cussion, because there has ])cen no real discussion al)()ut tliat particular 
point. We have taken the position that there can be no doubt raised 
as to the Canadian territory l)eginning at the summit; we have taken 
the position that the claim of Canada to occupy the territory inside of 
the summit from the boundary at White Pass and Chilkat Pass is not 
deniable, and we cannot admit it is debatal)le, and we have instructed 
our officers to estal)lish posts as near the t)oundary as ]>hysieal con- 
ditions will permit. 

Mr. Foster. How far from the water line^ 

The ^IiNisTER OF THE INTERIOR. About fifteen miles fi-om tide 
water. An accurate survey has not l)een made in th(^ \\'liite Pass, but 
the distance is al)()ut the same, fifteen miles. Therefore, so far as 
possil)le under the present coiulitions, the idea of the hon. gentleman 
has been carried out, and our officers have been instructed to locate 
themselves as nearly as possible to the summit on the north-eastern 
side and to take the summit of the White Pass and Chilkat Pass as the 
boundary line, without making any admission as to the right of the 
L'nited States to the territorv on the seaward side. 



170 EXTRACTS FROM DEHATP:S 

I'i'oin Dchatt'S^ Jlousr of Coiiiiiionx^ iJoiiKiiion of CaiKula. 1S9S. I d. 7. 
'p. filO. Frhniar;/ IG. 1S!)S. 

UNITED STATES OCCUPATION OF DYEA AND SKAGAVAY. 

Mr. Prior. Before the Orders of the Dn.\ are called, I wish to ask 
the right hon. First jNIinister whether his attention has been called to 
certain paragraphs that haxe appeared in the press, both in the United 
States and in Canada, to the effect that the United States Government 
are about to send two companies of troop to l)e permanently stationed 
at Dyea and Skagway. at the head of the Lynn Canal. That is, as 
you know, in disputed territory. It is a highway to the Yukon coun- 
try, and the reason given in these papers is, that there are a large 
number of disorderly characters assembled there at present, and that 
troops are required to prevent any riotous proceedings taking place. 
I also wish to ask the right hon. gentleman wdiether his Government 
has seen tit to let the United States Government know that the}' have 
no objection to these troops being sent there, but that such permis- 
sion nuist not be considered as an admission on the part of Canada 
that our claim to that territory has been withdrawn. We saw, in 
times past, how the sending of troops to San Juan affected the argu- 
ment before the arbitration, and I, for one, would not like to see the 
same thing occur again with regard to D\'ea and Skagway. 

The Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). The Government 
has not been informed of the intention to which my hon. friend has 
just referred. The Government did not know it was the intention of 
the American Government to send their troops to Dyea and Skagway. 
]\Iy hon. friend is aware that, although this is disputed territory, it 
has been in the possession of the United States ever since they acquired 
this country from the Russian Government in 1867. and, so far as my 
information goes, I am not aware that any protest has ever been raised 
l)y any Government against the occupation of Dyea and Skagway by 
the United States. It is only in recent years that the attention of the 
pul)lic has been drawn to it. I may say to my hon. friend, that the 
importance of having a delimitation or settlement of the boundary 
between Canada and the United States in that region is at this moment 
enoaiiino- our attention. 



From Dclxifcs^ Ilous, of Commons^ Dominion of (yinfi(h(. 189S,YoJ. /, 
'j>. 127 If, March 7, 1898.^ 

THE YUKON RAILWAY — THE ACTION OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE. 

Sir Charles Tuim'Er. B(>fore the Orders of the Day are called. ]\Ir. 
Speaker, I draw the attiMition of my right hon. friend (Sir ^\'ilfrid 
Laurier) to the statement which has just been made by the hon. mem- 
ber for Halifax (Mr. Kussell). I wish to ask my right hon. fricMul if 
he is aware of the action which the Senate of the United States have 
taken in the most formal and unmistakable manner, and whether in 
view of it he proposes to proceed w ith the Bill now before the House. 
M}' right hon. friend will remember that when this action of the United 
States was tirst pr()})osed. I drew his attention to it, and his reply to 
me was: that it was impossible to suppose that the legislature of any 
country like the United States of America could possibly adopt a 



IN THP: CANADIAN I'AHLIAMENT. 171 

measure of that kind. The riulit hon. o-cuth'iiiaii therefore (h.H'liiied 
at the time to consider seriously a proposition of such an extravagant 
character. We are now ))r()u_iiht face to face with the fact that the 
Senate of the United States, so far from treatin<i' that as a viohition of 
treaties and a thing tliat it was inn)ossihle that any (lovernment could 
entertain, have 1)V a majority of 34 to 10 declared their determination 
to render impracticable this ])roposed Yukon Railway hy the Stikine 
River. 

* * * -A- «• * * 

The time lias arri\"ed when it Ix'comes a most serious ([uestion for 
the right hon. oentleman and his colleagues to consi(U'r. whether under 
thes(^ circumstances he proposes to press this Hill upon the further 
consideration of this House, when it is proved l)eyond the possibility 
of a doul)t that it is to end in an utterly futile arrangement so far as 
the object contemplated l)y th(> Bill is concerned. I am quite certain 
that my right hon. friend and his colleagues will receive the hearty 
support of both sides of this House, in taking that manly and inde- 
pendent course which is absolutely due to the character and position 
of this country, and in devising such measures as will ett'ectually pre- 
vent our being subject(Kl to the ])ase humiliation we will l)e subjected 
to, if we were to submit to such terms as the Senate of the United 
States propose to dictate to the Government and Parliament of Canada. 

I beg. Mr. Speaker, to move the adjournment of the House. 

The Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). I agree very sincerely 
with the sentiments which have been uttered this moment bv my 
hon. friend (Sir Charles Tupper). I agree very sincerely w ith every- 
thing that he has said in regard to the maintenance of the dignity 
of this young nation. We are only a small nation yet. We are 
willing to 1)6 on the most fi'iendly terms with the powerful nation 
to the south of us. but 1 agree with the hon. leader of the Opposition 
that nothing should be given away of our national dignity. Though I 
agree with the sentiments which he has expressed in this regard. 1 am 
sorry that I cannot at all agree with him in the conclusions which he 
has based upon these sentiments. And 1 venture to believe and ho])e 
that when he has reflected upon this subject, he will come back to the 
opinion he himself expressed at one time outside of this House, and 
has since repeated in this House, that the only route we could have 
taken to have access to the Yukon country was that l)v the Stikine 
River, if we wanted to have the advantage given to us by treaty and 
to avoid the possi})le hostility of our American neighl)ours in regard 
to trade arrangements. 

When we had to determine upon the policy we woidd adopt and 
upon the route we would select, in order to afl'ord to Canadian trade 
and to the Canadian people access to that part of their own territory 
which lies in the region of the Yukon River, it was ai)parent that there 
was only one of two routes to lie chosen. We had either to take the 
route by the Lynn ('anal and Dyea, or the route t>y the Stikine River. 
The advantages of the one had to ho set against the disadvantages of 
the othei- and vice versa. The advantages of the route l)y the Lynn 
Canal were that it was shorter and more direct than the route l)y the 
Stikine River. But if W(^ had a(lo])ted the route l)y the Lynn Canal, 
that is to say. had chosen to build a railway from Dyea by the Chilkat 
Pass up to the waters of the Yukon, we would have to place the ocean 
terminus of the railway upon what is now American territory. I 
agree with the statement which has l)een made on the Hoor of this 



172 EXTRACTS FROM DEBATES 

house, on more tluin one oeeasioii. that Dyea. if the treaty is correctly 
intei'preted. is in Cairadian territory'. It ought to he; but the fact is, 
as my hon. friends know very well, even those who do not belong to 
the leoal profession, that possession is nine points of the law; and even 
though by the letter of tlie treaty, l)\'ea is in Canadian territory, the 
fact remains that from time inmiemorial Dyea was in possession of the 
Russians, and in 18(57 it passed into the hands of the Americans, and 
it has been held in their hands ever since. 

Now, 1 will not recriminate here; this is not the time nor the occa- 
sion for doing- so; but so far as 1 am aware no protest has ever been 
entered against the occupation of Dyea by the American autliorities; 
and when the American authorities are in possession of that strip of 
territory on the sea which has Dyea as its harl)our, succeeding the pos- 
session of the Russians from time immemorial, it becomes manifest to 
everybody that at this moment we cannot dispute their possession, and 
that befoi'e their possession can be disputed, the question must be 
determined by a settlement of the question involved in the treaty. 
Under such circumstances, Dyea Avas practically in American terri- 
tory — at all events, in possession of the Americans; and, therefore, if 
we had undertaken to Iniild a railway from Dyea to the Yukon country, 
we Avould have l)een placed at the mercy of the American authorities 
with regard to the bonding privilege. We would have been in this 
position, that though we had built a railway, the ocean terminus of 
that railway was not in our own country, and we could not send a ton 
or a pound of goods over that railway unless we had the permission of 
the American authorities. 



From DelxitcK^ House of Conotiiojis^ Douiinlon of Canada. 1901. Yol. 
//, p. U07, May 6, 1901. ' 

THE ALASKAN BOUNDARY. 

Hon. E. G. Prior (Victoria, B. C): Before the Orders of the Day 
are called, 1 would ask the right hon. leader of the House to give 
his attention to some correspondence 1 have received concerning the 
Alaskan boundar}- dispute. Last year I asked in the House: 

Has the large map of the Dominion, whioh was lately exposed to view in the 
vestibule of this building been sent to the Paris exhibition as an olKcial map of 
Canada exhibited by the government? 

Is it true that the boundary between Canada and Alaska, coimiioidy known as 
'Alaska boundary', is marked on that map arcording to the United States contention, 
and tliat the boundary according to the Canadian, or British Colundjia, contention, 
is not shown at all? 

To this question, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, replied: 

The map in question was sent to Paris as one of the exhibits of the Department 
of Public Works, but not as an official majx It is true that the boundary between 
Canada and Alaska, connnonly known as the 'Alaskan boundary', is marked on 
that map in two ways, marking the American contention and the Canadian conten- 
tion as to the lioundary, and each of these markings is distinctly stated to be what it 
represents, so that I do not think there can be any possiljle dilticulty or doubt as to 
what is meant. 

Last year I wrote to Mr. Begg. who has taken a great deal of inter- 
est in this question, and we both wrote to Mr. Brymner, who was then 
in Baris, asking him to go to the exposition and examine the map. 1 
have not got Mr. BrA'mner's answer to myself, as I imfortunately left 



IlSr THE CANADIAN PARLIAMENT. 173 

it ut home, but 1 luive a letter here from ^Nlr. 15eo-o- on the .sume sub- 
ject, dated 17th April, 1901: 

I have been lookiiifz over the letter sent to me by 'Sir. Brymner of Pari8, who 
visited the exhibition at yonr reciuest, and mine, to s^ee if it \va8 as represented — one 
provisional Ixunuhiry for British Cohniibia and another for Tnited States. In liis 
letter to me dated July 17, IHOO, he says: 'I had your note re the frontier question, 
also a letter from Col. Trior, House of Conmions, Ottawa, askinji me to ji;o and see if 
it was really as you stated, that the boundary marked ran up Poitland Canal, and 
not up C'larence .Sound, and if two boundaries were given and marked " provisional." 
There is but one boumlary marked, and that is the one claimed by United States, 
and there is absolutely no mention made of its being provisional. ' There is no dis- 
tinct colour between American and Canadian territory, so it is very difficult to trace 
the line, the area being so great (covered liy the ma])) that nearly all the names 
have been left out, so that neither Portland Canal, mir Clarence Sound are men- 
tioned. Wrangcl being the only name given in that neighborhood.' Mv object in 
alluding to this matter now is that this same map may be sent to Glasgow exhibi- 
tion, and it would be well to know if the erroneous boundary is marked running up 
Portland Canal, and if the British Columl)ia provisional boundary along Clarence 
Straits, as shown on British Columl)ia maps, is entirely left out. 

]Mr. Brymner's statement is undoubtedly correct, and it agrees with Mhat I sup- 
posed were the facts of the case. 

Of cour.'^e, I have not seen the map m\ self, but if Mr, Brymner'.s 
statement, both to Mr. Begg- and my.self be correct, namely', that the 
only boundary marked on the map is that which the Americans con- 
tend for, the government is greatly to blame for having allowed such 
a map to be put on exhibit. No doubt if on this map only the Ameri- 
can contention is shown, that will be brought in as an argument in 
favonr of the United States whenever the matter goes to arbitration. 

I would ask my right hon. friend whether he will find out if it be true 
that the Ameriean I)oundary is the only one indicated on this map, or 
whether there are two distinct boundaries marked on it and both stated 
plainly to be provisional^ 

The rKniE Ministek (Rt. Hon. Sir ^^'ilfrid Laurier). I shall call 
the attention of my colleague the Minister of Agriculture to the rep- 
resentations of my hon. friend. I may say, however, that in view 
of the advice we have received from our law officers, it is very hard 
to maintain that the boundary runs up Clarence channel. The treaty 
says in so many words the Portland canal, but there is a difference in 
opinion l)etween the Americans and ourselves as to where that channel 
is. We claim that it is west of Pearse Island. They claim that it is 
Ol)servatory Inlet. As to endeavouring to have the line pass along 
Clarence channel, which is a pretension Mr. Begg has often submitted 
to me, I do not think any one, who will take a careful view of the mat- 
ter, can be convinced of the correctness of that pretension. The point 
on which we iind the Americans do not agree, is as to what is Poi-t- 
land channel. They want to make it run up Observatory Inlet and 
rhcii to the west, making out that Observatory Inlet is only a small 
inlet rumiing into the interior. We, on the other hand, contend that 
Portland channel is as it is described on the map of \'ancouver on 
which the treaty of 1S25 .seems to have been based, namely, all that 
channel of water which runs west of Pearse Island. 

Hon. Mr. Prior. I do not think that this has anything to do with 
the (luestion whether the map is wrongly marked. Whatever bound- 
ary is described on it, should be marked provisional. 

The Prime Minister. The only provisional line we have agreed 
upon is around Lynn canal, and if my hon. friend will look carefully 
at the relief mapwhich is exhibited in the library, he will see that that 
is the only provisional line we have agreed to. 

26626— AP 12 



CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES 
COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY AND THE CANA- 
DIAN ^MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR, 18SS. 



(In the Appendix to the Briti.sh case. p. iJH6. there appears a letter 
from the Superintendent of tlie United States Coast and Geodetic Sur- 
vey, dated December 14. 1888, addressed to the Minister of the Inte- 
rior of Canada, relating- to a proposed surve}" of the boundary' of 
Alaska. Upon its face it shows that it was only a part of the corre- 
spondence on the subject. It is herewith given in full so far as is shown 
from the records of the office of the United States Coast Survey.) 

Tlie Sujjerhdendent of tJie Coast Survey to the Secretary of State. 

Treasury Department. 
C)ffice of the Coast and Geodetic Survey, 

Wa.sh!ngton. D. C, June 3, 1903. 
Hon. eToHN Hay, Secretary of State. 

Sir: In response to your request. I forward herewith copies of the 
correspondence which took place in 1888 between this Office and Mr. 
Dawson and the Minister of the Interior of Canada. So far as the 
records of this Office show the correspondence ended with the letter of 
the Minister of the Interior dated December 27, 1888. 
Very respectfully, 

O. H. Tittmann, Sujyerlntendent. 



31/'. Colonna to Dr. DaiDSon. 

U. S. Coast and (^ieodetic Survey Office, 

Washington, D. C, Nov. 26, 1888. 
Prof. G. M. Dawson, 

Geological Survey of Canada., Ottawa., Canada. 
Dear Sir: I regret veiy much that when you were in Washington 
last winter I did not have the pleasure of meeting you. Knowing 
that your time was very fully taken up by some gentlemen in the 
City, and being very busy myself, I lost the opportunity of making 
your acquaintance. I beg now to ask your aclvice in a matter of 
interest to us ])oth. 
174 



CORRESPONDENCE OF 1888 RELATING TO A BOUNDARY SURVEY. 175 

CongToss at its last Session made an appropriation for the bcoinnino- 
of a preliminary survey of the Boundary Line between Alaska anc! 
British CoUuul)ia. the work to be done by the United States Coast and 
Geodetic Survey. At the instance of the Superintendent of the Coast 
Survey Her Majesty's Govermnent was asked throuoh our State 
Department to send expert surveyors alono- with ours in order that all 
the sur\eyino- work which was done migiit receive the official sanction 
of both Governments. This proposition 1 have been informed was 
very favoral)ly received, but I have heard nothing- further from it for 
some time. Inunediately after Christmas we will begin the ecpiipment 
of our parties, and I believe that much good can be done bv having 
a thorough understanding with the Dominion Government as to just 
wh'.it we will do; but I do not know to whom I should apply for infor- 
mation oi- coojxn-ation. 1 therefore i)eg to suggest the matter to vou 
and ask if you will kindly interest 3'ourself in tt so far as you think it 
would be proper, and as you may be personally inclined, to the end 
that we may work in entire harmon}' and for the l)est interests of all 
concerned. 

If you will designate the person or persons to whom we should 
address ourselves formally, 1 will request the Superintendent of the 
Coast Survey to take whatever steps are necessary to ))ring al)out the 
desired end. 

Yours respectful 1}^, 

B. A. COLONNA 

Ata^lxfdiif in charge of Ojjice. 



Dr. Doiv-soii to Mr. Colon na. 

Department of the Interior Canada 
Geological & Natural History Survey. 

OttavKi, 1 Beceinhcr. 1S8S. 
Dear Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your kind note 
and must express my regret that I had not the opportunity of meet- 
ing you personally when in \Vashington last winter. 

I have no doubt it will ])e found possible to make arrangements 
agreeable to both parties in connection with any survey of Canada- 
Alaska boundary which may be undertaken, and I shall be pleased to 
render any assistance in the matter which may be in my power. 

Referring to the immediate subject of your letter, I think vou had 
better communicate with Hon. E, Dewdney, Minister of Interior. 
Any surveys undertaken from here would prot)al)ly be under his 
Department and I believe that you will tind him thoroughly conver- 
sant with the main features of the t)oundary matter and ready to give 
innnediate attention to anything which may be addressed to him on 
the subject 

Beliexe me, yours truly, 

George M. Dawson. 
B. A. Colon XA, Es(i., 

As-'sistant in Charge of Ofice^ 

U. S. Coast and Gtodtt'ic Sarm/, Wai^hington. 



176 CORRESPONDENCE OF 1888 

The Siqyerintendtnt of tJu- Coai<t Surrrij t<> the Canadian Jltnister of 

thi^ I nt trior. 

U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Office, 

WasJiington^f Dec. llf.., 18SS. 
Hon. E. Dewdxey. 

Moiisttr <f the Interior. Dominion of ('((nada^ Ottan'a. 

Sir: Some time ago in response to an incjuirv from this office Mr. 
G. M. Dawson of the Geological and Natural History' Survey of 
Canada referred me to you as the proper official with whom to com- 
municate directly and informally in relation to a subject upon which 
some time may possibly be saved by anticipating the result of formal 
correspondence between the governments of tlie United States and 
that of Great Britain. 

Xt its last session Congress made an appropriation with which to 
begin the woi'k of a preliminary survey of the frontier line ])etween 
Alaska and British Columlna and assigned the work to this Survey. 
The appro})riation. however, Ix'came availal)le at too late a date to 
permit anything except the task of pre})aration to be undertaken 
before next spring. It is ol)vious that — except as to a i)ortion of the 
frontier line which is coincident with the Meridian line of the 141st 
degree of West Longitude — it would be impossible for a Survey to 
definitely and authoritatively locate the boundary or frontier line. 
From some informal discussion of the matter it is understood that the 
Hon. Secretary of State will l)e likely to require that the preliminaiy 
survey shall, among other things, accurately establish in latitude anil 
longitude and })ermanently mark such a number of accessible points 
at certain distances from the coast or along certain mountains sunnnits, 
as, together with such topographical reconnoissance as may be prac- 
tical)le, will afford the geographical information rec|uisite to the 
proper negotiation of a treaty establishing a boundary. To obviate, 
during such negotiations, all controversy as to the accuracy of such 
geographical information it would seem to be desirable that both 
parties to the negotiations should be represented in the operations of 
the preliminary survey, by competent surveyors and astronomers 
whose concurrence in the determination of points in latitude and 
longitude and in the delineation of topographical features, would 
insure acceptance of their work by the negotiators and avert one pos- 
sible occasion of controversy and delay in the conclusion of a l)ound- 
ary treatv. The interval of four months or more which, under exist- 
ing conditions, must elapse before it will be i)racticable to place our 
surveying parties in the tield, in Alaska, would doul)tless enable the 
Canadian Govei'nment to arrange and equip three or four surveying 
parties to meet our parties at some rendezvous on the Pacihc Coast, 
in April next, and join in a ra])id prosecution of such preliminary 
Survey. The desired result might as well be accomplished, though at 
disproportionately small exi)ense for the Canadian Go\ermnent, l)y 
the detailing of a single Canadian surveyor and astronomer to accom- 
pany each of our full parties, of which there will prol>ably be four. 
Except as it mav l)e necessarily interrupted by climatic or other 
causes, it is expected that the survey, once begun, will be continu- 
ously prosecuted and that the parties will not I'eturn from Alaska 
until its completion within three, and ])ro1)ably two, years from the 
actual connnencement of work in the tield. 



rp:lating to a bouxdauy sukvp:y. 177 

In view of the foreo'oino- considerations it is understood that the 
expediency of such joint action by surveyors, etc., of the two g-overn- 
ments as is above outlined, has been made the sul)ject of corropoiid- 
encc between the two g-ovei'iunents. 

I have ventured to ])rino- the niattiM- to your attention now inasnuicli 
as the shortening of the time ])ri()r to the opening of the working sea- 
son i-enders it desiral>le that all the interval should be rendered avail- 
able to you for provisional or contingent selection of surveyors, etc., 
in anticipation of the formal action of your govenmient, which it is 
hoped mav be favorable to such joint work ))y the surveyors and 
astronomers of l)oth g'overnments. 

Any expression of your views in the premises, with which you deem 
it proper to favor me, will be duly appreciated by 
Verv respectfullv. Your obedient ser\ant, 

F. N. Thorn, 
Superintendent. 



The Canddian Mlnixtei' of the Interior to the Svperhdendt))t of the 

Coast Survey. 

Department of the Interior, Canada. 

Ottavxi, Beer. '27, 1888. 
I)p:ar Sir: I beg to acknowledge the receipt of 3"Our letter of the 
IJrth instant, in relation to the preliminary work about to be carried 
out by the United States Government in connection with the survey 
of the frontier line between Alaska and British Columbia, and to 
thank you for your suggestion that we should cooperate with your 
surveyors in this work. 

In reply I beg to state that I have submitted your letter to the (Gov- 
ernment, and that the matter is now under considei-ation. I hope to 
be able to comnuuiicate with you further on the subject. 
Yours truly, 

(t. Dewdney. 
F. M. Thorn. Esq., 

Sujjerintenelent^ U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Office., 

Washington. D. C. 



EXTRACTS FRO:\[ BlilTlSH AND CANADIAN 
PUBLICATIONS. 



Kd'ddrKtl ffoni ^^Thc C'oloji !i<f'\ Yicfoiuc^ B. ('., Aprd S^ 1867. 

THE CESSION OF THE RUSSIAN I'OSSESSIONS, 

By the terms of a Treaty made in 1S:>5 between Great Britain and 
Russia it was stipulated and agreed that an imaginary line should be 
drawn from the 60th degree of North latitude on the Pacitie to the 70th 
degree of hititude on the Arctic, which supposed line should mark the 
Boundary between the North Aiuerican possessions of the two powers. 
It was also stipulated in order to secure for Russia certain adyantages 
which were hers by right of discoyery that that power should hold 
and possess a narrow strip of Territory on the sea-board extending 
from 54. lO to the 00th degree of North Latitude, and running back 1<> 
leagues following the indentations of the Coast, and including all the 
adjacent islands. By this Treaty Russia secured the great Peninsula 
forming the extreme NorthAVestern portion of the Continent, while 
Great Britain reseryed for the use of her subjects the Territory lying 
SouthAVest of the Boundary line and East of the narrow Coast strip 
with the free navigation of the rivers emptying into the Pacitie be- 
tween 54.40 and 60. The mouths of Stekin and Taco rivers with 10 
leagues of the land lying })ehind them are in Russion Territory, ])ut 
the subjects of Great Britain have secured for their vessels the priv- 
ilege in perpetuity of ascending these streams to communicate or trade 
with the British Territory without being sul)ject to any port or other 
charges. No goods other than Russian however can lie landed anywhere 
within 10 leagues of the Coast-line without paying duties. The Hudson 
Bay Company al)out the time that this Treaty was ratified leased from 
the Russian (iovermnent the right to trade with the Indians inhabiting 
this narrow strip. This lease expired some years ago and has since 
been renewed yearly. The present lease will expire in June next, 
but should the Treaty not ])e renewed or the Russian possessions pass 
into the hands of the Americans, the Company's vessels will have the 
privilege of ascending all rivers emptying into the Ocean between 
54*^40' and 60^ of latitude, and trading with the Indians of the interior. 
Russian Navigators first discovered the country lying to the North 
of us and the strip was accorded that power to compensate her for 
the vast Territory (now known as British Columbia) to which she had 
consented to abandon all claim. The Pacific end of the line that 
stretches to the Arctic is mai'ked by ^Nlount Elias whose head is white 
with the frosts of Eternal Winter, and who stands like a grim Senti- 
nel watching, as it were, to protect the interests of both Nations, and 
to. see that no violation of the Treaty is committed by either with im- 

178 



p:xtra('ts fk(»m hkitish and Canadian i'Ublications. 17^> 

piinity. The Ku.ssian American Pcssessions are about 1,U0U inile.s in 
lenoth l>y 750 in breadth. The Fur Company exercise undisputed 
Authority over that vast extent of country which ha.s proved a mine of 
wealth to them. The country is represented as rich in precious and 
base metals. Thm-e -.ire traditions aHoat amono- Traders, who have vis- 
ited the sea coast that the Fur Com})any collect larue (juantitics of Gold 
Dust annually from the Natives. Such stories seldom contain a particle 
of trutli and u-eiieially exist only in tht> vixid imaoinalions of those who 
relate them. Hut it is a wellknown fact that copper in a pure state is 
found on the Ana River and that the sheets of bright native copper on 
which are traced Indian hieroglyphics said to possess great anti(|uity 
and found among the aborigenes on that portion of the coast were 
obtained on its banks and converted into their present form by some 
process known only to the Natives. Several large streams heading in 
British Territory How through the Russian possessions, and emi)ty into 
Behring Straits. These streams were partly explored last year by the 
Russian Telegraph Kmplovees. and one of them the Kvickpak. ascer- 
tained to be navigal>le for steam boats a distance of 14U<» miles. The 
Water in the vicinity of the Coast of Sitka as well as the Aleutian 
Islands (an important group lying to the South-East of the Peninsula 
of Alaska) furnish valuable fishing grounds, and the vessels of several 
Companies, with their Head-quarters at San Francisco, are extensively 
engaged through the Summer in catching and curing- cod-fish for the 
California market. The Russian Fur Company own several large 
steamers which visit the various stations at stated periods and secure 
rich freights of furs which are sent to Europe. The Coast is almost 
destitute of timber, and no good coal has been discovered there. The 
want of two such important essentials to life and comfort as these nuist 
ever prove a serious barrier to the rapid settlement of the country; it 
matters not into whose hands it may fall. From a Commercial point 
of view the establishment of a Colony of energetic go-ahead people 
who would open the mines of latent wealth that are represented to 
abound there, and would improve and turn to account every other 
advantage that the land may possess, would certainly prove beneficial 
to us. but looking at the Cession from a Political standpoint we con- 
fess we are not a little startled to ol)serve the strides that our Anun-i- 
can neigh])or is making on all sides to hem in and cut otf from every 
chance of Territorial expansion the British North American Confed- 
eracy. To Russia the possessions to the North of us are of no Political 
importance, but to the United States they may prove of incalculable 
value in view of the great and important change that has lately taken 
place on the Continent. The sum demanded for this Territory is said 
to have been ^T.ooo.doo. but from the opposition afiorded by the 
American Press we fancy it is nearer !^^7•>.•XM^(Ml(l. To judge from the 
despatches received last night it would appeal' that the ratification of 
the Treaty by the American vSenate is doubtful. Nothing pleases an 
American more than a knowledge of the fact that his country isadding 
to her Real Estate: extending her area: taking slow but positive steps 
towards the realization of the dream indulged in by Mr. Munroe whose 
"doctrine" was that the United States should inchidethe whole North 
American Continent. The position of the Senate is therefore strange 
and can only be accounted foi' upon the gi-ound that the Radicals are 
fearful that Mr. Johnson by accjuiring additional Territory should 
become so popular as to secure a re-election. 



180 EXTRACTS FROM BRITISH 

Editorial froiH ''The CoJ(misf\ Mcforhi, li. C, dated Apr!! 17 th 1SG7. 

THE RUSSIAN TREATY RATIFIED. 

Our Special Despatch annouuces the ratitication of the Treaty 
whereby Ru.ssia agrees to sell and the United States ag-rees to Tmy all 
that tract of land lyino- North and West of the 60th degree of latitude 
and known as the Russian Possessions in North America. The im- 
portance of this purchase cannot l)e over-estimated. It opens to 
American enterprise the inexhaustil)le Fisheries and the extensive 
Fur trade of that region, besides giving the United States control of 
a strip of sea-l)oard 10 leagues in width from Fort Simpson to the 
60th degree of latitude. Award that power San Juan Island and 
Great Britain will have scarcely a foothold of Coast on the Pacific 
that she can call her own or with which in case of war with our 
neighbor she w^ould not find it next to impossible to communicate, 
flohn Bull in America is being hemmed in by Brother Jonathan in 
a manner much more forcible than agreeable, and if the Duke of 
Buckingham really stated as reported that the cession of the Russian 
Territory to the Americans is a matter of inditference to Her Majesty's 
Government, he was either ignorant of the subject on which he spoke 
or the Home Government is trying to rid herself of her Colonies. 
The understanding between the United States and Russia is cordial, 
and although the cession of this Territoiy does not indicate an Alli- 
ance offensive between the two powers it would seem that Russia is 
preparing for trou])le on the Eastern question and is endeavoring to 
buy the moral support and sympathy of America in the struggle 
w^hich the whole World is aware must soon take place. 



A Report of a Committee of the Jlonoarahle tJie Executive Coimcil of 
British Cohnidna on the question of the Boundary hetu^een Canada 
and Alaska. 

[From "Sessional I'apers. 1SS5, Alaska Boundary Question," pp. 451, etc.] 

There are two points submitted for consideration: 

First: Whether it is desiral)le that steps should be taken to have the 
Boundary defincnl lietween Canada and the United States Possessions 
in Alaska. 

Second: A Requisition for Information in the possession of the 
Government of British Columbia on the subject, or that can be 
obtained. 

As to the first — 

For many reasons, apart from the national object of avoiding* 
grounds of dispute l)etween Canada and the United States, it is desir- 
able, as ert'ecting British Columbia particularly and the I>ominion 
incidentally, that the Boundary line referred to should be settled as 
soon as possible. 

Alaska ^vas purchased from Russia by the United States, on the 
i;^>th March, 1S67. for ^T,2oo,ooo. At that time its present importance 
was not exactly understood or appreciated. Its lately discovered 
sources of wealth in the seal fur trade, deep sea and river fisheries, 
gold and other mining, and groat extent of internal navigation In' 



AND CANADIAN PT^BLICATION^^. 181 

niouiis of the laro'o rixcrs Yukon and I'orcupiiic. have added ^-reatly 
to its iniportaiK-e. and are tending' to inerea.se. in a projjortionate 
d(\uTee. the value of importance of the adjoinino- territory, helonging- 
to British C'ohuubia and the Dominion. 

The Stikine liiver, I'unning- into Britisii Columbia, communieating- 
with Dease Lake and Kiver. and ultimately with the Peace and ]Mac- 
kenzie Rivers and the surrounding- Noi-th-West Territory, has its 
outlet in American Teri'itory. Thi^ navigation of the Stikine. for 
l)ur})Oses of conmierce. was i'eser\-ed to both countries by the Treaty 
of \\'a>hington. isTl. 

In l.S7o. gold was discovered in the Cassiar District, about the upper 
waters of the Stikine. Dease lake and Ki\er. and the other streams in 
that vicinity. In 1874, trade rapidly developed itself. A mining 
population flowed in. and supplies of A'aluable goods and merchandise 
were required. In INTO, the volume of trade amounted to about 
^o5o.O(M), and the duties paid to the Dominion Revenue, at Victoria 
and Glenora. on goods consumed in the Cassiar District, amounted to 
])etween ^85.000.' and ^-1-O.(»0i>. 

Returns to ISSU show a somewhat tluctuating trade, as is connnon to 
all mining' centres, but the average taken amuially is still of consider- 
al)]e amount, namely, from 1S77 to 1880. from !^2i>n.0OO. to 1^215,000., 
and taken fi-om 1880 to 1881. diminishing- on the Stikine. but so increas- 
ing- along- the coast as to keep the average at the same point. 

Thus. a]:)art from all considerations as to the future value of this 
northern ])ortion of British Columbia, when the advancing- progress 
of settlement from the eastern sections of the Dominion shall have 
reached it. we have at present an existing- annual trade of upwards of 
§80<>. (•(»(», vielding- to the Dominion Revenue per annum S;-}5.O(»0 or 
$4(>.<>00. " 

This trade is seriously jeopardiz(>d ))y the unsettled nature of the 
<|uestion. that is the uncertainty of the l)oundarv line — not that there 
is the slightest uncertainty where it is to be found, but that it has not 
been laid down territorially, and locally detined between the two 
countries. 

As illustrating this danger, a short statement of facts will lie 
useful: — 

The entrance to the Stikine River is within American territory. 
The Am(>rican Port of Entry at its mouth is Fort Wrangel. There 
all goods intended for the interior have to be transshipped, or an 
American othcer put on board the British vessel to see that they are 
not landed in the American territory in transitu. Every merchant 
knows that this adds to the expense and delay of transportation, which 
expense and delay would be entirely avoided if. within the Bi-itish 
line, a port of Entry was established, to which seagoing vessels from 
(Mthei- British or foreign ports, with cargoes, could go direct, without 
breaking bulk, coming in no way within the purview of the coasting- 
trade ()l)iections. Within what is here claimed as undou])t(Hl British 
Territory- al)out 3<» miles from the mouth of the river— fa(-ilities for 
establishing such a port exist. 

Captain Irving, the present manager of the Canadian Pacific Steam- 
boat and Navigating Ct)mpany. an experienced and able navigator on 
this coast. Avho navigated the Stikine for two years when business 
commenced in that direction in 1873-71. states that the depth of water 
from the mouth of the river to P)uck"s. 3(» miles up. is from ♦'» to 8 



182 EXTRACTS FROM BRITISH 

feet at low water, easily navi<ial)le for steamers drawiiio- h-ss than six 
feet, thus atfordino- on the River an available Bi'itish Port, to which 
g-oods from Victoria and the other ports of British C'olumhia could be 
forwarded without transshi|)ments. and under the Treaty with free 
navio-ation for pur])osesof commerce, avoidinoall (juestion of expense, 
delay, or irritation with the American authoi-ities at Fort Wrano(>l, 
Captain Irvino- was himself subjected to the most arbitrary and inex- 
cusal)le possil)ilities by the Custom House officers at Fort Wrang-el, 
resultino- in the illeg-al seizui'c of his steamer and the loss of several 
thousand dollars, fi'om which he had idtimately to seek redress in the 
Courts of the United States. 

At this place, called Buck's. 30 miles up the river, in 1876, a French 
Canadian, named Choquette, carried on a very laro-e trade with the 
Indians of the neig'hborhood. who, from old associations w'ith the 
Hudson's Bay Company, preferred dealing in British goods. The 
extent of Choquette's business may be estimated from the fact that 
from one firm alone in Victoria his purchases amounted to $25,(>0(), 
annually, and his sales several times in one day alone to a single 
Indian would amount to $1,200. in blankets, bv way of barter — a blan- 
ket, from the old Hudson's Ba}- Company's custom, being- a unit of 
value. 

It was the policy of the American authorities to divert this trade to 
the American markets, and, in October, 1ST6. Choquette was served 
with an ofhcial notification from the Custom House authorities in 
Alaska to remove from his place of l)usiness, or pay American duties 
on his stock, giving him until the spring of ISTT to obey. 

To see more immediately the application of this circumstance, it is 
to be mentioned that, in 1875. to avoid dithculties likely to arise from 
this undefined boundary, it had been agreed between the Custom House 
authorities of the United States at Alaska and the Dominion authori- 
ties of British Columbia, but without any direction or sanction from 
the Dominion Covermnent, to establish, pending or until a final set- 
tlement, a conventional line, crossing the river about two miles below 
''Buck's", which, up to that time, had been recognized as admittedly 
within British territory; and in the vicinity not far from Buck's. Mr. 
Han)lev. the Collector of Customs for'British Columl)ia. had stationed 
a revenue officer, Mr. Hunter, to collect the Dominion duties. 

Finding, after a short time that, in so extremely isolated a position, 
it would not be safe for a revenue officer with moneys collected to 
remain, or reasonably concluding so from the reputation of the Indians 
and the dangerous characters resorting to the mines. Mr. Hamley 
deemed it prudent to remove his officer to Glenora. the head of the 
boat navigation on the river, where a vigorous settlement had sprung 
up. and where the duties collected in the seasons of 1875 and 1S76, 
extending from -lune to SeptemlxM', amounted to nearly ir^lo.ood. 

In making this removal, Mr. Hamley did it for the protection of the 
public funds and the safety of the pu])Iic officer. It is presumed, 
however, that the local American authorities regarded it. or assumed 
to regard it, as an admission of al)andonment, and immediately claimed 
the l)oundary line to Ix^ 30 or 4o miles further up the river, or about 
60 miles from its mouth, and accordingly served Cho([uette with the 
notification above-mentioned. 

It is proper here to ol)serve that Clio(|uette's case was, l)V letter 
dated the 16th Octolxn-, ls76, conununicated bv Mr. elustice Grav, the 



AND CANADIAN ITHLIC ATIONS. 183 

rJiulg'o of the SupioiHc Court wlio had Iuh'ii holding tlie Assizes at 
Cassiar, to the Dominion Government, and an arrangement was made 
l)et\veen Canada and the United States by which the threatened action 
of th(> American authorities at Alaska was stayed. 

Thus, we have the fact, not oidy that there is a good trade on the 
Stikine, but that there are facilities for preserving and extending the 
trade within the power of the Dominion Government, whih^ there is 
danger of losing it by diday in atl'ecting a settlement of the dispute as 
to the boundary. 

Other important eonsid(M'ations are also involved, which may have 
to form the subject of negotiation, rather than the demand of right. 

Under the Treaty of Washington, in ISTI. it was questioned wliether 
the right of navigation of the Stikine had l)een narrowed. 

By the Convention of 18-i."). l)etween Russia and Crreat Britain, in 
foiVe at the time of the transfer to the United States, there was no 
express limitation as to the purpose for which the navigation was to 
be used. 

By the Treaty of \\'ashington, made since the transfer, it was 
expressly limited to conunerce. This raised the question as to the 
right of the Dominion Government to transport criminals arrested or 
fonvicted through that part of the Stikine undoubtedly within Amer- 
ican territory; and. after much correspondence and negotiation with 
Her Majesty's Government and tlie United States, it was finally con- 
ceded the Dominion Government had no such right. Practically the 
absence of such right a))olishes all but the death penalty in that north- 
eastern portion of British Columbia. 

Tlu^ state of the country does not admit of the building and main- 
taining there peiiitentiaries or prisons, and the transport of convicted 
felons through ♦»(io miles of unbroken wilderness is practicallj^ almost 
an impossibility. 

This leaves that district in a most unsatisfactory and anomalous 
position as to the administration of justice. 

In another r(vsp(>ct also, in view of any ulterior extension of the 
Canadian Pacitic Railway, or its branches, to an ocean terminus at 
Port Sini]ison. the settlement of this Boundary line is important, both 
in a strategical [)()int of view, as atl'ecting the sea approaches to the 
port, and in an economical point of view, as atl'ecting the co. lection of 
revenue. These objections will more clearly appear when the second 
or topographical branch of the case submitted is under discussion. 

By delay, erroneous impressions also, as to the true terms of the 
Treaty become engrained in the public mind, which increase the diffi- 
culty of <)))taining a settlement. 

Already lai'ge munbers of the residents of Alaska though only tem- 
porary, entirely ignore oni^ of the most marked (dements governing^ 
the line, and convert a negative direction into an affirmati\(» right. 
For instance, when the line is directed to l)e along the sunnuit of the 
coast range of mountains, but in no case to exceed 1(> marine leagues 
from the coast, though the sunnnits of the coast range might not be 
more than 10 to 15 miles. 

This idea, by degrees, is taken to be the Treaty, and has to be 
removed with nuich labour before the public sanction would be given 
to any other line. How unjust this would be to l)ritish Cohunbia 
will be shown hereafter. 

These and manv other r<'a>ons ai'c conclusive that it is essential for 



184 EXTRACTS FROM BRITISH 

the welfiire of British C()lunil)i:i. that the true bomidarv line, or soiii(> 
clear line of deniarcatioiu should he at once agreed upon, or settled 
between the two countries. 

Takino- up the second branch of the case, as to where the boundary 
line should be, it may be at once assumed, as an axiom, that unless 
by sanction of the contracting- parties or their representatives, it must 
be in accordance with the line laid down in the Convention between 
Great Britain and Kussi^i in 1825., There has been no ag-reement 
between Great Britain and the United States relative thereto, and the 
latter succeeded only to what Russia had. 

We have then hrst to see the terms and language used l)y the con- 
tracting parties in 1825. 

2: The initial or starting point then agreed upon. 

8rd: The course from that point directed to be followed. 

■1: The effect of following that course as to compliance or non-com- 
pliance with the topographical features of the country pointed out in 
the Treaty as objects for guidance. 

5: Whether the line claimed ]>y I)ritish Columbia does not in every 
respect coincide with the terms and language used })v the contracting 
parties. 

6: \\'hether the line claimed or alleged to be claimed by the United 
States authorities is not, in ever}^ essential particular, a departure 
from such terms and language? 

The tirst point to be determined is — What were the exact terms 
and language used by the Convention between Great Britain and Rus- 
sia in 1825:! 

In McCulloch's Commercial Dictionary (edited by Henry Vethake. 
LL. D., Professor of the University of Pennsylvania, published at 
Philadelphia in 1852) will l)e found the full text of the Convention, 
signed by Stratford Canning, Nesselrode, De Poleticas. 

The line is there thus described:— 

3. The line of demarcation between the Possessions of the High Contracting 
Parties upon the coast of the continent and the islands of America to the North-west 
shall be drawn in the manner following: — 

Commencing from the southernmost point of the Island called Prince of Wales 
Island, which point lies in the jiarallel of 54 degrees 40 minutes North Latitude, and 
between the lolst and 133rd degrees of West Longitude (Meridian of Greenwii-h), the 
said line shall ascend to the north along the channel as far as the jioint of the conti- 
nent where it strikes the 56th degree of North Latitude; from the last mentioned 
point the line of demarcation shall follow the summit of the mountains situated 
parallel to the coast as far as the point of intersection of the 141st degree of West 
Longitude (of the same Meridian); and finally from the said point of intersection of 
the said meridian line of the 141st degree in its prolongation as far as the Frozen 
Ocean, shall form the limit between the Russian and I3ritish Possessions on the 
Continent of America to the North West. 

In Hertslet's Collection of Treaties (volume 8) will also be found the 
text. It is identically the same, except that in the line "shall ascend 
to the north along the channeU'. it adds the words "called the Portland 
channel." 

AVheaton — the American writer on International law, (>th edition, 
edited by Wm. Beach Lawrence, pul)lished at Boston in 1855 — does 
not includ(> these latter words as part of the original instrument, but 
inserts them in his text and adds the words "Eastward to the Gi'eat 
Inlet in the Continent called Portland Channer". which Hertslet does 
not use. 



AND CANADIAN PUBLICATIONS. 185 

In givino- his details of this Convention or Treaty as lie t-alls it. at 
page 2'2-i. after stating that it was signed at St. Peters})urg, Fel)ruarv 
28th, 18:^5. and established a permanent l^oundai'v line between the 
territories respectively claimed by them (e. g.. Great liritain and 
Kussia) on the Continent and Islands of North Western America". 
AMieaton sa3's — 

By the 3rd and 4th Artirle^it was ajirreed that the Hue of demarcation l)etween the 
PossessionfJ of the hi<ih contracting parties ni)on tlie Coast of tlic Continent and the 
Islands of America to the North-West shonld he drawn from tlie southernmost ])oint 
of Prince of Wales Island in Latitude o4° 40^ Eitxtv;ard to tlw great Inld in the Continent 
called Forthiud Channel, and along the middle of that Inlet to 5(5° of Latitude, whence 
it should follow the summit of the mountains bordering the Coast within ten leagues 
North Westward to Mount St. I^lias, and thence North in the course of the 141st 
meridian west from (ireenwich to the Frozen Ocean, which line shall form the limit 
between the Russian and the British possessions in the Continent of America to the 
North-west. 

In this summary given by Wheaton, there is a striking ditierenec 
from both McCiilloch and Herstlet. He not onl}" leaves out the Longi- 
tude, but he interpolates the word Eastward. 

At page 227, referring to this subject, he lays down a rule which 
will materiallv aid in determining which of the three is right — viz, 
that. 

in the construction of an Instrument of whatever kind, it should l)e construed, if 
possible, ax that erery part ntaij stand. 

Suffice it for the present to sa}^ that under this rule, in the applica- 
tion of his delineation to the geographical and topographical features 
of the country, it fails in almost every partictdar. 

Yet the features of the country must have been known to the parties 
who framed the Convention, or the language given b}' ]\IcCulIoch as 
descriptive of it could not have been used. 

Not the slightest inference is to be drawn, or any reflection upon 
the motives of the writers thus differing. 

At that time the dispute was between Great Britain and Russia. It 
was not until forty years after that the United States became interested 
in the question. These very differences, hoAvever. enable us to come 
to an accuracy of conclusion. 

In this same Convention, there is another element of description 
which, though not included in the above extracts from McCuUoch, 
will have to be referred to. and may to some extent account for the 
mixed summary of Wheaton. It is as to the distance of the line from 
the coast, and is here quoted: 

Article 4. With reference to the line of demarcation laid down in the preceding 
Article, it is understood: 

1. That the Island called Prince of Wales Island shall belong wholly to Russia. 

'2. That where the snnnnit of the mountains which extend in a direction parallel 
to the Coast from the o()th degree of North Latitude to the point of intersection of 
the 141st degree of West Longitude shall prove to be at a distance of more than 10 
marine leagues from the ()cean, the limit between the British possessions and the 
line of Coast which is to Ijelong to Russia as above mentioned shall l)e formed by a 
line parallel to the windings of the Coast, and which shall never exceed the distance 
of 10 marine leagues therefrom. 

The original of this Convention must be foimd eitluM- in the archives 
at London or St. Petersljurg. and may yet have to be referred to. In 
the new edition of McCulloch, printed at London in 1851>, it is not set 
out in full. l)ut is declared to be in force bv the Treaty of Commerce 



186 EXTRACTS FROM HRITISH 

and Navigation between Great Britain and Russia, signed at St. Peters- 
burg-, January li^th, 1859, the IHtti section of whicli says: 

In regard to Commerce and Navigation in the Russian possessions on the Xortii- 
Avest Coast of America, the Convention conchided at St. Pt'tcrshiug on tlu' Itith 
Fehruarj-, 1S25, shall continue in force. 

It is a singuhir circumstance that, in all the negotiations and corre- 
spondence with the LInited Sttites and the directions l)\' the Dominion 
Government to its own officers, it has been assuined tJii'oughnut that the 
original Treaty or Convention between Great Britain and Russia did 
contain those words "called the Portland Channel," as appears Ijy the 
Return made to the Dominion House of Commons on the 2ord of April, 
1878, to an Address dated 21st February. 1878. for information on the 
sul)ject of the boundary line, as connected with the subject of the escape 
of one — Martin; United States Customs notitication to Choipiette; and 
the contemplated issuing of a Conmiission jointly with the United 
States to run the line, and published in extenso in the Sessional papers 
pp. 23 to 146, Vol. XI, No. 2, 1878 (125). 

The Government of British Columbia contends that this is entirelv 
an erroneous assumption without authority to sustain it; and that from 
all the information that Government can olitain it has reason to believe 
that those words will not be found in the original, or if there, the 
term has been misapplied — not as to where the Portland Channel really 
is, but as to its being the channel contemplated by the Treaty. 

In the earlier versions of the Treaty obtainal)le in British Columbia, 
they are not found. 

They are not in McCulloch's version, published at Philadelphia in 
1852, already quoted. 

The}^ are not in the version of the Treaty in " Steels Shipmasters 
Assistant." A new edition published and corrected to the 1st of March, 
1837, (just twelve years after the Treaty), by J. Slikeman. Secretarv 
to the East India and China Association, containing " Information for 
persons connected with Mercantile Affairs, Commercial Treaties. tVcc," 
and printed by Logman & Co., Paternoster Row, London. 

The}^ are in Wheaton, published at Boston in 1855, and in the ver- 
sion in Hertslet's Collection of Conmiercial Treaties, published at 
London in 1856. 

The Government of British Columbia further contends that those 
words are entirely inconsistent with the description, terms, and con- 
ditions laid down in the Treaty itself as guides for detining the 
))Oundary. And further, that even if such words are found in the 
transfer of the Alaska Territory from Russia to the United States, 
Great Britain was no party to that transfer, and cannot l)e atfected 
or depri\'ed of her territorial rights therein'. 

Having exhausted the information that can l)e ol)tained in British 
Columbia relative to the terms and language of the Convention, it 
becomes our duty to see which description, that of McCuUoch, Herts- 
let, or Wheaton tallies most correctly with the geogi-aphical and topo- 
graphical features of the country, and thereby, under Wheaton's rule 
of construction, carries with it internal evidence of its being the Ian 
guage of the Convention used by the Contracting parties. 

An undoubted test of the accuracy of a description relative to land, 
is its accord with the territorial features found on the land, and the 
facility and certainty witii which land marks maybe found, recognized 
and identitied. 



AND CANADIAN ri'HLICATIoNS. 187 

It may with 0(|ual coi'i-eotness be stated that positive territorial hind- 
luarks capahh^ of ideiititication. clearly defined, and existinii' within 
the limits and on the spot di'lincated. cannot he overridden t>y the use 
of words of nonuMU'laturc inconsistiMit with such description and their 
existence — words which niayliave beiMi and perha[)swere inadvertently 
used, or accidentally mis|)laced; nor can such an identilication be 
superceded l)y the interpolation of ttM'ms. without which th(> descrip- 
tion requirino' such terms would be so inaccurate as to ))e utterly 
inai)plicable and inadmissible. 

Kemembering these rules of construction, we turn to the languao-e 
of the Convention and the features of the country, as the latter are 
delineated on the Acbniralty Charts and other maps herewith enclosed. 

The initial or starting jjoint is declared to be from the southernmost 
point of the Island called Prince of Wales; which point lies in 54' 4U' 
N., and between l.'U and l;-};} West Longitude. 

We find that point at Cape de Chacon. 

Thence to ascend noi-therly along the channel until it strikes the 
continent at oH^ X. 

Following that instruction, we turn northerh' from tliat point, 
ascend the channel, and strike the continent at 56- on the N. W. point 
of Burrough's Bay. 

Thence the sununit of the mountains parallel to the coast, at or 
Avithin ten marine leagues from the coast, as far as the intersection 
with Ui' W. L. 

In like manner, following that course from Burrough's Bay, we find 
the sunniiit of the coast range within the distance specified, and at 19 
or UU miles above the mouth of the Stikine. 

Insert the words ''Portland Channel" as found in Hertslet and from 
the starting point instead of northerly you have to go east fully 16.66 
marine leagues or 50 nautical miles, before you turn north. 

Again, you cannot ascend the Portland Channel until you strike the 
Continent at 56 . 

Thirdly, you could not from the head of Portland Channel — assiun- 
ing these Admiralty surveys are correct — strike the summits of moun- 
tains parallel to the coast, because there are several intervening ranges, 
and the line would necessarily run far more than ten marine leagues 
from the coast — in fact o\er twenty. 

Then with AVheaton's definition you have to insert not only '' Port- 
land Channel"", but his word '* Eastward", which is not found in either 
text of the Treaty: and to assume that the summit of the range of 
mountains that would be found, where a line i-unning north up the 
Portland Channel would strike the continent at 56- would be within 
ten leagu(>s of the coast, whereas it is shown by actual measurement 
on the chart that it must necessarily be more than twenty marine 
leagues oil. The oidy possible solution that can be found for the con- 
tention on behalf of " Portland Channel" is, that in the entrance of 
this channel is an island called "Wales Island", the southernmost 
point of which is in 54"^ 40' N. L., and from which point a northerly 
course would ascend Portland Channel. l)ut which Island is not only 
not in the longitude specified. l»ut. as aln^ady stated, is 50 nautical 
miles to the east of that initial point. 

Moreover, it may be observed, that Portland Channel, from its 
enti'ance to its head, is so entirely within the contiiuMit that by ascend- 
ing it vou could hardlv be said to strike the continent. 



188 EXTRACTS FROM BRITISH 

Whereas the northcily coui'.se from the sturtino- point to Burroiigh's 
Bay. actually passes anioiio- the islands, and does not strike the con- 
tinent until you reach M) . 

Tiius, with reference to McCuUoch's version of the Treaty, you 
reconcile every word and term with the t»-eouraphical and topooraphieal 
features of the country directed to be your oiiide; while to adopt the 
version of Hertslet or Wheaton, you have to ignore all — nay, even to 
reconcile themselves to themselves, you have to interpolate words 
which are nowhere to be found, and which, while suiting- one part, 
are utterly inconsistent with every other part. 

As eonhrmatory of the construction in favor of McCulloch's version, 
the first sul)division of the 4th Article of the Convention may also be 
cited. It there declares that the island called Prince of Wales Island, 
shall belong wholly to Russia; a declaration unnecessary if the line 
was to go up the Portland C'hannid. 

A most striking illustration of the truth of these views is found 
in the position of the coast range of mountains where it crosses the 
Stikine. That range rises not far from the tide waters, and the 
summit of that range is within 20 miles of the sea. This is proved 
by the fact that in following up the valley of the Stikine, the axis of 
the range is passed tit al)out 11»^ miles from the coast. Up to about 
this point the Stikine makes a somewhat easterly course from the sea. 
Thence rounding the range in (jiiestion. it takes a more northerly 
course, receiving four or five glaciers, which flow in an easterly direc- 
tion from the summit of the range into the valle}' of the Stikine. 

Therefore there can be no difficulty in ascertaining the line contem- 
plated ]>y the Convention. 

From the head of Portland Channel to reach a distance of even ten 
marine leagues from the coast to find the coast range, would render 
necessary the crossing of at least two intervening mountain ranges, a 
circumstance wholly irreconcilable ^vith the Treaty, the head of that 
Channel being where a protraction of it would strike the 5t> parallel, 
over 20 marine leagues from the coast. 

The survey of Mr. Hunter, C. E., appointed by the Dominion Gov- 
ernment to examine and report, will be found at page l-tG of the Ses- 
sional Papers 125 above referred to, and conclusively establishes the 
coast line range of mountains at the crossing of the Stikine to be about 
20 miles from the sea, and within lo marine leagues; and the Russian 
maps, tracings from which are enclosed herewith, show, with equal 
certainty, that both above and 1)elow the Stikine the coast range runs 
approximately at the same distance down to the 5(ith pai'allel; where 
the line ascending northerly from the southernmost point of Prince of 
Wales Island, Cape de Chacon, would strike the continent — an impos- 
sibility if the Portland Channel be assumed to be the line. 

On this latter point also, as to the position of the coast range below 
the Stikine down to Cape Camano, Mr. McKay, an old factor of the 
Hudson's Bay Company, atl'ords the most direct personal observation, 
having on three several occasions coasted the whole distance in canoes, 
and confirms, in th(^ strongest manner, the pt)sition of the coast range 
as above stated, and the correctness of the delineation on the Russian 
maps, and the language of the Treaty in that ])articular. 

His evidence is in such detail, and is so thoroughly reliable, fi'om 
his standing and experience in the country, extending over -iO years, 
that it is o-iven in full. 



AND CANADIAN PUHLK'ATIONS. 189 

The set'tidu of country Avliich lies bctwci'ii tlic mouth of the Stikine and Cape 
Cainano if< very rujrged, fouHistinfi; of short rai j;es of mountains which follow the 
general trend of the coast, and whicli are intersected by numerous deej) ]irecipitous 
gorges. 

These gorges are the outlets of series of more elevated and wider valleys following 
the general direction of the coast ranges and dividing tln-sc from the more fomi'act 
ranges of the interior. 

The coast ranges rise ahrui)tl\- from the sea. 

The distances of their summits from the seashore may he state<l as from fifteen to 
twenty miles. Their general elevation above the level of the sea at from two thou- 
sand to four thousand feet. 

The intersecting gorges are short. The dividing valleys extend in some instances 
for many miles, containing nnni,erous lakes, discharging rivers of considerable mag- 
nitude. As dividing the coast ranges from those of the interior they form an impor- 
tant feature. 

The sunnnits or water-sheds of the coast ranges can be clearly defined l)y tracing 
the flow of the streams and glaciers toward the sea, and toward the (bviding valleys 
above described. 

iV8 further stvcngtheniiigthi.s position, both at the time of the Treaty 
and before, there are a set of ancient French maps, the property of a 
gentleman in Victoria, in which the dividing line between the British 
and Russian possessions in the vicinity of Prince of Wales Island, is 
clearly defined and shown l)y a coloured delineation, placing the whole 
of Portland Channel, and all of the Islands (including the large Island 
of Revilla-Gigedo) up to the channel leading northerly from the Cape 
de Chacon, the southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island, in lati- 
tude 5-1:"' 40', and longitude 1S2"^ west, within the British possessions. 

This map was pidjlished at Paris on 1815, just after the Restoration, 
and dedicated to Monsieur the Cotnte D'Artois. Under the head of 
observations, printed thereon, is the following: 

I.\DIC.\TIONS DES-MATERIAl'X. 

Amerique Russe (extremite du Nord Quest) les cotes du Detroit de Bhering, celle 
du Xord du Grand Ocean, y'conipris les lies Aleutinnes, la pre.*que'ile d'Alaska — en 
allant vers I'Est jusq'au 145° degre de Longitude Occidentale sont tires d'une carte 
en 4 feuilles du Xord dulJrand Ocean, pul)Iit' A 8t. Petersburg en 1802 — Les noms 
des peuplades que se trouvent vers cette extremite de L' Americiue sont i)laces d'apres 
les rapports de ^Messrs. Demidoff, Karscheteff, Baranoff, &c., de I'expedition de 
Krusentern. Cotes Ouest, Xouveau Norfolk, Conouailles, Nouvelle Hanover, Xou- 
velle Georgie, Nouvelle All)ion, et Nouvelle Californie. Toutes ces cotes sont tirees 
des cartes des voyages de Vancouver. 

[Translation.] 
SOURCES OK IXFORM.\TION-. 

Kussian America (The extremity of the North West) the Coasts of Behring Straits, 
that of the north of the Great Ocean and the Aleutian Islands compri.-;ed therein, 
the Peninsula of Alaska, as far List as the 145° of West Longitude, are drawn from 
a map, in four sheets, of the North of the (ireat Ocean, ]»ul)lislied at St. Petersburg 
in 1SU2. The names of the tribes who inhabit this extreme end of America are 
taken from the Keiiorts of Messrs. Demidoff, Karscheteff, Baranoff, &c., of the 
Expedition of Krusentern. 

The West Coast, New Norfolk, New Cornwall, New Hanover^ New Georgia, New 
All)ion, and New California. All these Coasts are drawn from majis of the Voyage 
of Vancouver. 

It is not only a ])r(>sinnj)tion that the Russians in using the language 
they did thoroughly understood the meaning they intended to convey,' 
but it is a well-known tradition among tliose who were acquainted 
with the country many years back, that the language did express the 
sole and only object tlie Russians then had in view. 

20026— AP 13 



190 EXTKACTS FROM BRITISH 

There hud been a conihitmtion of the Indians extendlno- all alono- tlie 
Coast, from Sitka doAvn to Prince of Wales Island. ])v which Sitka in 
early years, after the Russian settlement, had been talien and burnt. 

After its recovery the Russians wished to l)e phiced in a position by 
which they could command this coml)ination of the Indian tribes, and 
for this reason in their division and settlement with Great Britain, 
they secured the narrow ])elt alono- the coast, cuhninatino' with the 
summit of the Coast Rani>e, bcA'ond which the ^Maritime Indians were 
not wont to pass. 

It was not land the Russians desired, and this Convention ]ilaced 
them in a position to punish the Indians without any infraction of 
the rights of Great Britain. 

Whether this tradition be true or not, at an}' rate, it was well cal- 
culated to accomplish Avhat it is alleoed it was intended to do. 

To some degree as corroborating this view, we find it mentioned by 
a traveller on the Stikine in 1870 that as a general rule the sea-coast 
Indians do not go into the interior. The Taltan Indians, a line river 
tril)e. — honest and industrious and priding themselves on their good 
name — claim th(> lordship of the river, and refuse to permit the Naas 
or sea-coast Indians to come into the interior. 

Of course an Indian's permit depends upon his power to enforce 
what he forbids, and there must have been occasions when the Sea- 
coast Indians penetrated into the interior, but it can well be under- 
stood that this known hostility of the inner and outer Indians would 
induce the Russians to believe the narrow l)elt along the coast sufficient 
for their purpose. 

Thus we have the hmguage of the Treaty, as ]\Ir. McCulloch gives 
it, coinciding not oidy with the topographical features of the country, 
l)ut accomplishing the ol)ject which tradition assigns as the reason for 
its adoption. 

The Government of British Columbia contends that any recognition 
of the words "'Portland Channel'' as being in the Treaty, was a grave 
mistake, and most injurious to the interests of British Columbia. 

vS- * * * * * .: * 



Extract from the British Case in the Far Seal Arhitration. {(Vm- 
(jressional Edition^ Vol. .^, ^>«(7tf.9 o£, 53.) 

The works of Mr. Robert Greenhow. Translator and Libraiian to 
the United States De])artn.ientof State (well known in connection with 
the discussion of tin* "Oregon ([uestion"). afford a detailed and con- 
clusive means of ascertaining the views officially held by the United 
States Government on the meaning of Paeijic Ocean, Beltr!n</ Sea., 
Nortk-weiit caast., and the extent to which the claims made by Russia 
in the Ukase of 1821 were abandoned by the Convention of 1824. 

A "Memoir"" was prepared by Mr. Greenhow, on the official 
request of Mr. L. F. Linn, Chairman of a Select Committee on the 
Territory of Oregon, by order of Mr. -John Forsvth, Secretary of 

[«See Senate Executive Document 2so. 174, 26th Congress, First Session.] 



AND CANADIAN PUBLrCATION^^. 191 

State. It incluclos a map eiitithMl "The North-wost Coast of North 
Amerit'a and adjacent Territories," Avhicii extends from l)elo\v Acapulco 
in Mexico to aljove the mouth of the Kuskoquim in Behrino- Sea, and 
enihrace.s also the greater part of the Aleutian chain. 

•' NORTH-WEST COAST." 

Touching th(> sio-nification of the terms Nort/i-irest coast and Paelfjc 
Oci'dii^ and the meaning attached to the relintiuishment of Russian 
claims by the Convention of 1S24, the lirst part of the "• Memoir," 
under the heading '• (icography of the Western Section of North 
America," contains the following passage: 

The north-n-eKt coast* is the expression usually employed in the United States at 
the present time to distinguish the vast i)ortion of the American continent which 
extends north of the 40th parallel of latitude from the Pacific to the jrreat dividing 
ridge of the Uocki/ .)fo>n}t<iiiis, together with the contiguous islands in that ocean. 
The southern part of this territory, which is drained almost entirely by the River 
Coluud)ia, is commoidy called (hrr/oii, from the supposition (do doubt erroneous) 
that such was the name applied to its princii>al stream by the aborigines. To the 
more northern parts of the continent many api)ellations, which will hereafter be 
mentioned, have l)een assigned by navigators and fur traders of various nations. The 
territory bordering u})on the Pacific southward, from the 40th parallel to the extrem- 
ity of the peninsula which stretches in that direction as far as the Tro])ic of Caiu-er, 
is called Otlifornia, a name of uncertain derivation, formerly ai)plied by the Spaniards 
to the whole western section of North America, as that of Florida was employed by 
them to designate the regious liordering upon the Atlantii'. The north-west coast 
and the west coast of California, together form the west coaxt of North America; as it 
has been found impossible to separate the history of these two portions, so it will be 
necessary to include them both in this geographical view (p. 1). 

Mr. Greenhow here gives the following note: 

In the following pages the term coast will be used, sometimes as signifying only 
the sea-shore, and sometimes as embracing the whole territory, extending therefrom 
to the sources of the river; care has been, however, taken to prevent misapi)rehen- 
sion, where the context does not sufficiently indicate the true sense. In order to 
avoid repetitions, the aorth-ved coast will be understood to be the north-vest coast of 
Xorth America; all iiitilndes will be taken as nortJi latitudes, and all longitudes as ivest 
from Greenwich, vniless otherwise expressed. 



KctracU from Bi'itisli Counter Case in the Fur Seal Arbitration {Con- 
(/rcss/ona/ FAitlon^ Vol. 8, jxtges 1(3-1^6, ^8). 

"XOKTII-WEST coast" WAS USED THROUOIIOUT PREOMINARY NE(40- 
TIATIOXS TO INCLUDE COAST FROM BEHIIIN(4 STR.AIT TO LATITUDE 
51- NORTH. 

It is proved in the Hritisli Case, by numerous extracts from tiie cor- 
respondence which preceded the Treaties, that the words "north-west 
coast" were used, throughout the negotiations, to include not less than 
the whol(^ of the Xoi-th American coast from Behring Strait to latitude 
51- north. 

-X- * * * * * A 

* N. 15. — The it(dii-s in this and sub.^jequcnt iiuotations are those employed by 
< rreenhow himself. 



192 EXTRACTS FROM BRITISH 

Mr. G. Canning wrote to Mr. S. Canning' [.stli DeceuilHT. Ib24] a.s 
follows: 

GKEAT HHITAIN PKOPOSES TO ADOPT ARTICLE IV OF AMERICAN TREATY, WITH I'lS RECIP- 
ROCAL LIBERTY OF ACCESS TO NORTH-WEST COAST. 

We are content also to assign the .period of ten years for the reciprocal liberty of 
access and coninicrce willi each othi'r's territories, which stipulation may be best stated 
precisely in tlic terms of Article IV of the American Convention. 

. BUT THE ''LISIERE'* WAS TO BELONG TO RUSSIA. 

This shows that Mr. Canning did not understand the term ''north- 
west coast" to be confined to the ''lisiere.'" the pi'oposals relating to 
which had one unvarying condition, namely, that it was to belong to 
Russia. Had the term been so confined, the careful provision of 
Article IV, that "the ships of loth Powers, or which belong to their 
citizens or subjects /'r.sjh-ct/'n/h/, may reciprocal/ 1/ frequent, without 
any hindrance whatever, the interior seas,"" &c., becomes meaningless 
as far as anv advantage to Russia is concerned. 



ARTICLE II OF 1825 TREATY SPEAKS OF BRITISH ESTABLISHMENTS ON 
"north-west coast," PROVING THAT THAT COAST WAS NOT CON- 
FINED TO THE "lISIERE." 

Article II, likewise, is in substantially the same form in each Treaty 
that of 1(S25 concluding thus: 

Russian subjects shall not land without permission at any British establishment 
on the north-west coast. 

Therefore, '' north-west coast" here, too, cannot mean the "lisiere." 
Article III, in the original French, begins: 

La ligne de demarcation entre les possessions des Hautes Parties Contractantes sur 
la cote du continent et les iles de I'Am^rique nord-ouest, sera trac^e ainsi qu'il suit: 

The line is then defined. It runs from an initial point, described as 
being .situated in 54* 40' north latitude, to the Arctic Ocean. 

Article IV defines tlie boundary between the narrow strip of coast 
already referred to as allotted to Russia and the British possessions. 
The strip is described as — 

la lisieie de cote mentionnee ci-dessus comme devant appartenir a la Kussie. 

Articles V and VI both distinguished between "cote" and "lisiere." 
* * * * * * * 

MEANING OF " NORTH-WEST COAST." 

OREEXriOw's DEFINITION AGREES WITH BRITISH CONSTRUCTION. 

Recurring to the expression "north-west coast" or '"north-west 
coast of America," it is rarely that the expression in either form is 
found as a geographical term, or that its precise signification is spe- 
cially defined in words. One instance is the definition gi\en b}' 
Greenhow, and quoted at p. tiO of the British Case, which corresponds 
precisely with the position maintained by Great Britain. The term 
is not often found on Maps, but a somewhat extended examination of 
these has resulted in the discovery of a few instances of its use. at 



AND CANADIAN PUBLIC ATIONS. 193 

diites l)()th hoforo and ut'ttM* that of tlio Troaty of 1825. From an 
iiispootioii of th«\s(> Maps, it is (luitc apparent that tho exprossion was 
employed in a Aerv lax and oen(M-al sense, and without pieeisicni of 
nn^aninii' in respeet to lines of latitude and loniiitude. 

-:<- * * * * * * 

A NOTICE BY THE UNITED STATES IX 1845 ASSUMES THAT THE TREATY 
OF l>f24 INCLUDES THE WHOLE RUSSIAN-AMEKICAN COAST NORTH OF 
LATITUDE 5-t- 4<»'. 

Further evidence that no distinction was drawn by the United States 
Govermnent between the coasts of Behring Sea and those of the rest 
of the Facitic is afforded by the Notice which is referred to at p. 59 of 
the United States Case, and is printed in full in United States Appendix, 
vol. i. p. 1>1. The Notice which was publish(>d on the 26th September, 
1845. at the request of Russia 1)V the United States Government, is as 
follows: 

The Russian 3Iinister at Washington has informed the Secretary of State that tlie 
Imperial Government, desirous of affording official protection to the Russian terri- 
tories in North America against the infractions of foreign vessels, has authorized 
cruizers to be established for this purpose along the coast by the Russian-American 
Company. 

It is, therefore, recommended to American vessels to he tareful not to violate the 
existing Treaty between the two countries, l)y resorting to any point upon the Russian- 
American coast where there is a Russian estalilisliment, without the permission of 
the Governor or Commander, nor to fretpient the interior seas, gulfs, harl)Ours, and 
creeks upon that coast at any point north of the latitude of 54° 40'. 

It is clear that this Notice was not intended to apply only to so much 
of the Russian- American coast as lies between latitude (id- or latitude 
59^ 80', or any other particular ))oint, and latitude 50- 40'. 

Its real object was to remind the su1)jects of the United States of the 
provisions of the Treaty of 1824 which restrained their rio'ht to visit 
places on the Russian-American coast where there were Russian estab- 
lishments, without the permission of the Governor. 



E.i'fn let from Pi'/nted Aiuiunicut In tln^ Fur StuJ Arhitiuition. [Con- 
grr.ss/otiaJ Edition, rol. JO, jxtges W^ '21.) 

Throuohout the neo-otiations which jireceded the Treaties, the words 
•■ noi'th-west coast " were used to include not U>ss than the whole of 
the North Ameiican coast from B«>hrino- Striiits to 51' north. If it 
had been intended to limit this o'(>neral term to a certain portion of 
the coast, explicit lanouajj-e would have been used. 

One contention of the United States, in effect, limits the '"north- 
west coast'- to the llslere defined in the IlIrd Article of the Treatv of 
1825. 

Whilt^ on the one hand Artich^ \'l of the Treaty was confined to the 
lislerr liallqurA', on the other hand, thi^ recii)rocal lil)erty()f access and 
commerce with each other's territories secui'cd by Article VII was 
clearly not contined to the //.v/V/v ; the main ))roposals mad(» with reo-ard 
to this related to its j)ossession by Russia. The other )iro})osals. 
includino- that as to reciprocal lil)erty of access, related to the whole 
of tlu^ north-west coast. In th(» woi-ds of Mr. Uannino-, writino- in 



194 EXTRACTS FROM BRITISH 

1824, the object was to secure reciprocal access to the territories of 
the respective Powers. This was effected by adopting-, as Article VII 
of the British Treaty, Article IV of the United States Treaty, which 
gave to Kussia and the United States a reciprocal rig'htof frcciuenting 
for ten years the interior seas on the coast mentioned in Article III of 
that Treaty. This coast was clearly the whole of the north-west coast 
from Behring Strait southwards to about 54' 40', Russia .igreeing not 
to form any establishment south of 54-^ 40', and the United States 
agreeing not to form any to the north of that latitude. 

-X- -X- -x- * * * * 

Article III of the Treaty of 182.5 traces the line of demarcation 
between the two Powers on the coast of the (;ontinent and the islands 
of North-western America. 

Article IV defines the Eastern l)oundary of the lisicrc which Avas to 
belong to Kussia. 

Article V emphasizes the possession of the Hsltrc by Russia b}" 
reiterating that the reciprocal j)rohibition against forming estal)lish- 
ments in the possessions of the two parties respectively applied in the 
case of the Russian possessions both to the coast and to the //s/V'/'^ com- 
prised within those possessions. 

Article VI dealt only with the //v/c/r, granting to Great Britain a 
perpetual right of navigation of all the rivers llowing to the Pacitic 
across the line of demarcation of the Ji-nere indicated in Article 111. 

Article Vll, on the other hand, dealt with the coast of the continent 
mentioned in Article 111: it gave to the two parties a reciprocal right 
of visit to all the inland waters, harbours, iScc, on this coast: it applied, 
therefore, to the coast of the whole of the Russian possessions, as well 
as to the whole of the coast of the British possessions. 

If the right of access under Article VII were limited to the coast of 
the lislere, the reciprocal character of the Article would l)e destroyed. 

The text of the Treaty clearh^ shows, therefore, that the expression 
"north-west coast" included the whole of the coast on the north-west 
of the American continent; and that the term " Pacific Ocean " included 
all the waters washing the north-west coast, including Behring Sea. 

This argument is supi)orted by the fact that in the Treaties of 1841, 
1848, and 1859, concluded by Russia with Great Britain and other 
Powers (and which are examined in the British Gounter-Case, pp. 
51-52), the tei-m "North-west coast of America*' is used in a manner 
blowing conclusively that it included the coast of Behring Sea. 

The Treaty of I85i) did not expire till lS(i!>, /. t,, after th(> cession 
of Alaska to the United States. 



Extract fi-o II I the Oral Argument of Sir Richard Webster in the Fur 
Seal A7'hitration. {Congressioual Edition, vol. IS, pages 4^50-4^52.) 

Sir Richard Webster. * * * Will you kindly turn now to 
the British Treaty on page 53 of the British Gase, and I will endeavor 
to tak(^ it as shortly as p<)ssil)le. It will not be waste of time to run 
through it without reading tlu^ articles at length. The scheme of that 
Treaty is of some little importance in order to com})lete my argument 
upon the pomt. Article I corresponds with, and I sav is th(^ same as. 
Article II in the United States Treatv. Aiticles HI and \\ tind no 



A^D CANADIAN rrHLICATIONS. 195 

j)hu-e in the rnitcd States Treaty. They relate to the //.v/V/v. It is 
not nec(\ssarv that I should do more than explain in one sentence what 
it was. that my story may he conii)lete. It was neeessary to determine 
a land l)oundaiT between liritish America and Alaska, and accordinoly 
Articles III and IV' relate solely to what that land boundary should 
be. Article V corresponds with Ai'ticle III of the Tnited States 
Treaty. It is an aorecment l)etween (ii'eat Britain smd Russia as the 
previous aureeiuent existed l)etween the United States and Kussia, 
that no establishment should be formed by Gi-eat Britain north of the 
line of delimitation. 4'lien Article VI refers to the rivers crossing 
the llslere. It was necessary l)ecause it finds no place in the United 
States Treat}', because there was no l!><iere. 

It is understood that the subjects of His Britannic INIajesty, from whatever quarter 
they may arrive, whether from the ocean or from the continent shall for ever enjoy 
the right of navigatiTijr freely, and without any hindrance whatever, all the rivers 
and strea4ns which, in their course towards the Pacific Ocean, may cross the line of 
demarcation upon the line of coast described in Article HI of the present Convention. 

Perhaps, it would not l)e inconvenient if 1 read to you the French 
version of that Treaty, which you will find — and you can put them side 
In' side — at the end of the B. (J. Appendix, Volume 2, Part III to which 
1 have just been referrino-. 

The President. —It would be better to look at the French original, 
as this was a translation. What you have just read is the PLnglish 
translation. 

Sir RiCHAKD Webstek. — You are right. Sir. In ])oth cases the 
originals of this Treaty were in French. What General Foster said 
later on al)Out the iStiT Treaty did not apply to the one of 1824. 

If you wottld look if you please. Sir, at Article ^'l. on page 8, of part 
2, you will find this. 

^Ir. Justice Haklan. — It is in the Appendix to the American Case, 
volume 1, pages 39 and 40. 

Sir Richard AVebster. — Quite true. It is this: 

II est entendu que les sujets de Sa Majeste Britannique, de quelque cote qu'ils 
arrivent, soit de I'Ocean soit de I'interieur du continent, joniront a i)erpctnite du droit 
de naviguer librementet sans entrave quelconque, sur tons les tleuves et rivieres ()ui, 
dans leurs cours vers la mer Pacilique, traverseront la ligne de demarcation sur la 
lisiere de la cote indiquce dans I'Article III de la presente Convention. 

Therefore, when you look at the original, there is not any doubt 
about it at all, t)ecause they refer, most properly, to the '"lisiere de la 
cote""; and if you will turn back to Article III you will hnd there the 
lisiere described. 

Mr. Justice Harlan. — What are the Knglish words in Artiile ^'I 
corresponding to lisiere^ 

Sir Richard Webster. — I will read it: 

Maj' cross the line of demarcation u]>on the line of coast. 

The expression "' line of coast" is not the ]>ro]ier translation — it ought 
to be ^^ strip of coast". '"Strip" is the correct translation of " lisiere", 
if I may be permitted to say so Mr. President, and no doul)t if 1 am 
wrong you will connect me. "Lisiere" is "seh'age" — "strip" — like 
the edge of cloth — '"boixUn-". 

Lord Hannen. — You might suggt-st yet another word — "margin". 
Sir Richard Webster. — I will read now Article \\\. which corre- 
sponds with the American Articl(> \\ . 



190 EXTRACTS FROM BKITISH 

It is also iinilerstoixl tliat, for the sjnu-e nl ten years I'ruin the signature of the pres- 
ent Convention, the vessels of the two Powers, or those belonjiino; to tiieir res))eetive 
suljjeets, shall mutually be at liberty to frecjuent, without any hindrance whatever, 
all the inland seas, the gulfs, havens, and creeks on the coast mentioned in Article 
III, for the purpt)ses of fishing and of trading with the natives. 

Not the h'.sie/'e,' and it" you look at the P'reiich. which is ])('rf(M-tly 
plain description, the words are: 

Les golfes, havres et criques sur la cote mentionnce dans I'Article III 

^^'ithollt any r(> fere nee to "liHieri''' at all. The only feeling 1 have 
in d(»alino' with this- matter, is that it is a little cruel to ni}' friends to be 
exposino- the inipossil/dity of niaintainino- the aro-unient l)v which Mr. 
Carter has said, in his opinion, Mr. IMaine, to his entire satisfaction was 
completely successful in showing- that Behring- Sea was excluded from 
the Pacitic Ocean, and that Northwest coast had this meanino- hy those 
treaties. 

Mr. Justice Harlan. — Would you turn to Article III and tell me 
what is the ''coast" mentioned there. 

Sir Richard Webster. — Yes. The coast mentioned in Article III, 
is — 

The line of demarcation lietween the possessions of the High Contracting Parties 
upon the coast of the continent and the islands of America to the north-west. 

T/uft is from about 5-i 40' right up to the point where 141^- West 
longitude strikes the Arctic Ocean, and I submit there is no question 
about it. 

The line of demarcation runs behind the lisiere until it gets to Mount 
St. Elias, and then it goes straight u]). 

Mr. -lustice Harlan. — What do you say is the point of the shore 
referred to as the ''coast'' in Article YIK 

Sii- Kichard ^VEBSTER. — The "coast" is the whole of the coast up 
to Behring Straits. 

Mr. Justice Harlan. — Up to Behring Straits^ 

Sir KicprARi) ^^^EHSTER. — The line of demarcation is a complete line. 
It divides the British possessions from the Russian possessions; it has 
nothing to do with the lisiere. 

Now I wnll read the translation, and ]ierhaps, ^Ir. Picsident, you will 
kindly follow it in French. I am reading fi-om ]>age 54 of the British 
Case. It is not my translation but I beli(ne it is correct. It is this: 

The line of demarcation between the j)ossessions of the High Contracting Parties 
upon the coast of the continent and the islands of America to the north-west, shall 
be drawn in the manner following: 

Conunencing from the southernmost part of the island called Prince of Wales' 
Island, which point lies in the parallel of 54° 40' north latitude, and between the 
RSlst and the l;Wrd degree of west longitude (meridian of Greenwich), the said line 
shall ascend to the north along the channel called Portland Channel, as far as the 
point of the continent where it strikes tlie 56tli degree of north latitude; from this 
last-mentioned point, the line of demarcation shall follow the sunnnit of the moun- 
tains situated j^arallel to the coast, as far as the point of intersection of the 141st 
degree of west longitudt- "of the same meridian"; and, finally, from tlie said jxiint 
of intersection, tiie saitl meridian-line of the 141st degree, in its prolongation as far 
as the Frozen Ocean, shall f(jrm the limit between the Russian and Rritish posses- 
sions on the continent of America to the north-west. 

I submit (remembering that the liiu» of thnnarcation was to l)e com- 
plete with reference to tiie coast referred to as the north-west coast of 
the continent, and the Islands of America to the north west), that 
nol)ody who can take an impartial view of this matter can come to any 



AND CANADIAN PUBLICATIONS. 197 

other conclusion than that the coast I'eferred to in Aiti( le \\l is the 
whole coast: and \vh( n we leineniber that in the Tnited Stat(>s the 
expri>ssion //.svV/v does not occur at all. and that Article III of the 
I'nited States treaty speaks of the north-west coast of America north 
of oU^ 4<)'. and that 1 am justitied in saying" that Mr. George Canning- 
believed that he was getting the same for Great Britain as the United 
States had got from Russia — there is not any answer, at any rate, 
apparcMit (uidess 1 hav(> made some grave hlunder) to the contention 
that the right oi Great Britain to visit, during ten years, iidand cn^eks. 
and harbours, and to \isit for the ]nirpose of navigation and tishing the 
seas which washed the American coasts extended right away from i'A 4o' 
up to the point to which I have called attention. 

■K.rfi'adxfi'oni the Spen-Ji hy the Hon. Churl i^h Sumner, of 2L:L^sachiifietti<, 
"u tht' Cession of Rii><slaii America to the United States in 1867. 
If. R. Er. l)oc.^l77\ IfOth Conc/r^'ss, 2nd Session. Pages 121^-180. 

[Rc'priiiteil in the Britisli Case in the Fur Seal Arbitration, Appendix I, Vol. 4 of Cons^ressional I'^rlition 

pages 269-l'70, 286-288.] 

]Mr. Pmkside.vt: You have just listened to the reading of the Treatv' 
by which Ku.ssia cedes to the United States all her possessions on the 
North American Continent in consideration of 7, 2o( ),()()( > dollars, to be 
paid l)v the United States. On the one side is the cession of a vast 
countiT with its jurisdiction and its resources of all kinds, on the other 
side is the purchase-money. Such is this transaction on its face. 

BOUNDARIES AND CONFIGURATION. 

In endeavouring to estimate its character I am glad to l)egin with what 
is clear and beyond question. 1 refer to the boundaries fixed b}' the 
Treaty. Commencing at the parallel of 54^ 4i»' north latitude, so 
fauious in our history, the line ascends Portland Channel to the moun- 
tains, which it follows on their suimnits to the point of intersection 
with the 141- west longitude, which line it ascends to the Frozen 
Ocean, or. if you please, to the North Pol(\ This is the eastern boimd- 
ary, separating this region from the British jjossessions. and it is 
borrowed from the Treatv between Russia and Great Britain in 1825, 
e.sta])lishing the relations between these two Pow^ers on this continent. 
It will be seen that this l)oundarv is old; the rest is new. Starting 
from the Frozen Ocean, the western boundary descends Behring Straits, 
midway between the two islands of Krusenstern anil Ratmanov, to the 
parallel of 65 30', just l)elow where the Continents of America and 
Asia ap|)roach each other the nearest: and from this ])oint it i^rocecnls 
in a course nearly south-west through Behring Straits, midway l)etween 
the Island of St. Lawrence and Cape Chonkotski. to the meridian of 
172- west longitude, and thence, in a south-westerly direction, travers- 
ing Behring Sea, midway Ijctween the Island of Attou on the east, and 
Copper Island on the west, to the meridian of 1W6^ west longitude, 
leaving the prolonged group of the Aleutian Islands in the possessions 
now transferred to the United States, and making the western bound- 
ary of our country the dividing line which separates Asia from 
America. 

Look at the map and see the contiguration of this extensive region, 
whose estimated area is more than .■)7< '.<«»<• scpiare miles. I speak In' 
the authoritv of our own Coast Survev. Including the Sitkan Archi- 



198 EXTRACTS FROM BRITISH 

pelao'o at tho south, it takes a niarii'm of tlic mainland, frontin*:' on the 
ocean 80 niih\s l)roa(lan(l oOU niih\s lonu-. to Mount St. Elias, the highest 
peak of the continent, when it turns with an elhow to the west, and 
then along- Behrino- Straits northerly, when it rounds to the east along- 
the Frozen Oceau. Here are upwards of 4,(XH) statute miles of coast, 
indented by capacious baA's and commodious harbours without number, 
embracing- the Peninsula of Alaska, one of the most remarkable in the 
world, 50 miles in breadth and 300 miles in length; piUnl with moun- 
tains, many volcanic, and some still smoking; pcMK^trated by navigable 
rivers, one of which is among the largest of the world; studded with 
islands which stand like sentinels on the coast, and flanked l)v that 
narrow Aleutian range which, starting from Alaska, stretches faraway 
to flapan, as if America were extending a friendly hand to Asia. This 
is the most general aspect. There are details specially disclosing mar- 
itime advantages and approaches to the sea, which properh' belong to 
this preliminary sketch. According to accurate estimates the coast- 
line, including bays and islands, is not less than 11, '270 miles. In the 
Aleutian range, besides innumerable islets and rocks, there are not less 
than tifty-tive islands exceeding 3 miles in length; there are seven 
exceeding -lO miles, with Ounimak, which is the largest, exceeding 73 
miles. In our part of Behring- Sea there are live considei'able islands, 
the larg(\st of which is St. Lawrence, being more than t»6 miles long. 
Add to all these the group south of the Peninsula of Alaska, including- 
the Shumagins and the magnificent Island of Kodiak, and then the 
Sitkan g-roup, being- archipelago added to archipelag'o. and the whole 
together constituting- the geographical complement to the West Indies, 
so that the north west of the continent answers archipelago for archi- 
pelago to the south-east. 



AXTIOIPATION OF GREAT BRITAIN. 

4. Another motive to this acquisition ma}- be found in a desire to 
anticipate the imagined .schemes or necessities of Great Britain. With 
regard to all these I confess m}^ doubts, and yet, if we may credit 
i-eport, it would seem as if there was already a British mo\ement in 
this direction. Sometimes it is said that (ireat Britain desires to bm' 
if Russia will sell. Sir George Simpson, Governor-in- chief of the 
Hudson Bay Company, declared that without the strij) on the coast 
underlet to the foriuer ])y the Russian Company the interior would be 
••'comparatively useless to England.'' Here, then, is a provocation to 
buy. Sometimes report assunuvs a graver character. A German 
scientific journal, in an elaborate paper, entitled, "'The Russian Colo- 
nies on the North-west Coast of America," after referi'ing- to the con- 
stant "pressure" upon Russia, proceeds to say that there are already 
crowds of adventurers from British Columl)ia and California now at 
the gold mines on the Stikine, which Hows from British territory 
through the Russian possc^ssions, who openly declare their purpose of 
drixing tlu^ Russians out of this region. I refer to the ''Archix' fiir 
Wissenschaftliche Kunde von Russland," edited at Berlin as late as 
18<)3, by A. El-man, vol. xxii, p|). ■47-70, and uncjuestionably the lead- 
ing- authority on Russian questions. At the same tinie it pi-esents a 
curious passag-e bearing- directh^ on British polic}' from the '' Ij/-/'f/sh 
Colonist,''^ (( newspaper of Mct(>r!((, ou Ydncouver's Zs/((/t(7. As this 
■WHS reg-ardcd of sufficient importance to be translated into German for 



AND CANADIAN PUHLICATIONS. MU) 

the iiistriu'tioii of the readers of a scicntilie journal. I shall be jiistitiecl 
in laying" it before you restored fi'oin the (ieriuan into Kiiolish. It is 
as follows: 

[77//'6- (ii'iicle from ilw '''British Colonist" ojqx'ors In ihe United 
States Case, Aj)j)cNd/',e. par/es, 321-32-).} 

Thus, if we wvay credit this colonial ejaculation, caut4iit up and pre- 
served by German science, the Russian possessions were destined to 
round and complete the domain of Great Britain on this continent. 
The Russian ''Eagle"' will give way to the British "IJon."' The 
Anglo-Norman was to be master as far as Behring Straits, across Avliich 
he might survey his Russian neighbour. How this was to be accom- 
plished is not precisely explained. The promises of gold on the Stikine 
failed, and it is not improbable that this colonial plan was as unsub- 
stantial. Colonists l)ecome excited easily. This is not the first time 
in which Russian America has been menaced in a similar way. During 
the Crimean war there seemed to be in Canada a spirit not unlike that 
of the Vancouver journalist, unless we are misled by the able pamphlet 
of Mr. A. K. Roche, of Quebec, ^vhere, after describing Russian 
America as ''richer in resources and capabilities than it has hitherto 
l)een allowed to ])e either by the English who shamefully gave it up, 
or l)y the Russians who cunningly obtained it,"' the author urges an 
expedition for its conquest and annexation. His proposition fell on 
the happy termination of the war, but it exists as a warning, with a 
notice also of a former English title "shamefully'" abandoned. 

This region is distant enough from Great Britain; but there is an 
incident of past history which shows that distance from the Metropoli- 
tan Government has not excluded the idea of war. Great Britain could 
hardlv be more jealous of Russia on these coasts than was Spain in a 
former day, if we may credit the Report of Humboldt. I quote again 
his authoritative work, "Essai Politiquesur la Nouvelle-Espagne"' (Tom. 
1 p. o-to). where it is recorded that as early as ITSS, (>ven while peace 
was still unl)roken. the Spaniards could not l)ear the idt-a of Russians 
in this region, and when in LT'.H) the Emperor Raul declared war on 
Spain the hardy project was formed of an expedition from the ^Mexican 
ports of Monterey and San Bias against the Russian Colonies, on which 
the philosophic traveller remarks, in words which are recalled by the 
Vancouver manifesto, that "'if this project had been executed the world 
would have witnessed two nations in conKict. which, occupying the 
opposite extremities of P^urope. found themselves neighl)ours in 
another hemisphere on th(> eastern and western boundaries of their 
vast Empires.'" Thus, notwithstanding an intiM'viMiing circuit of half 
the globe, two Great Powers were about to encounter each other on 
these coasts. But I hesitate to beliiMC that the British of our day in 
any considerable numbers have adopted the earh" Spanish disquietude 
at the presence of Russia on this continent. 



J/ia/'strr Scott on thr Alonluin Ixmiolary. 

[Extract from Debsitos of the Seiintc of tlic Dominion of Cnnndii, Third Session. Soventli I'arlinment. 

Jiinunry 30. 1893. p. 15.] 

This boundary of Alaska is a very old suljject. It crops up period- 
ically. It was up some fifteen or twenty years ago, and at several 
periods since. Alaska, as hon. gentlemen probably know, is that part 



200 EXTRACTS FROM BRITISH 

of the fountiy ceded by Hussia to the I'liited Stutes on this coiitiiieiit. 
By the treaty between (irefit Britain and Kussia in 18:^5. a boundary 
line was estal)lislied between British territoi'y and Russian territory 
on tlie western side of this continent, and I am sorry to say that, as 
in the case of a great many other treaties where the lands of Canada 
were made the subject of treaties by plenipotentiaries from the mother 
country, Canada got the worst of it. If any one looks at the map he 
will see how ver}^ illogical it is to give away, or to consent to a foreign 
country occupying so nuich of the coast line of this continent as Kussia 
then insisted upon occupying of our Canadian territoi-y on the north- 
west. But the l)oun(lary line between the two countries was made 
rathcM- a \nv///Ae: Prince of Wales Island (strange to say, one would 
have thought the very name would have saved it as a possession of the 
British Crown) was freely given away to Russia, and the line was then 
run to the head of Portland channel and by a devious crooked line to 
Mount Elias. It is that very devious crooked line that is now engaging 
the attention of the two Governments. If I had any advice to offer to 
the two Governments, I should say adopt a true line running straight 
north, wholly irrespective of the height of land mentioned in the 
treaty. Under the treaty the line was to follow the height of land. 
Where the height of land was more than ten marine leagues distant 
from the shore, then a line riuming parallel to the shore and ten 
leagues from it was to be followed. The mountains of course do not 
follow the coast in a direct line, they bend towards the shore, and the}'' 
bend inland, and so the line is an exceedingly diftieult one to draw. I 
think, therefore, that the two Governments ought to agree upon a 
degree of longitude, a straight line which would run north to Mount 
Elias. 



The Ahi-'<lii hoiiiidiiry question. 

[The Year Book of British CoUunbia. K. E. Gosnell, Victoria. B. C.. isy; to 1901 (pp. 93-99h] 

The United States was allowed by purchase, on the 18th of March, 
1807, the year of our Dominion nativity, to become the owner of a 
stretch of country 1,100 miles in its fullest extent and 800 miles at its 
greatest width. The sinn paid was ^7.200.000. It has turned out to 
be a gilt-edge real estate investment, notwithstanding that at the time 
there was strong opposition to it in the United States. Little was 
known of the resources of Alaska then, and the folly of buying a Hcdd 
of ice and a, sea of mountains was forcibly commented upon. 

No doubt political rather than material reasons weighed with the 
Administration at Washington, because it gave a foothold in the north 
of the Continent, in addition to th(» possession of a vast realm in its 
southern half. For i)olitical. if for no other reasons, (ireat Britain 
should have prevented such an accom]:)lishment. If her statesmen had 
made themselves familiar with the conditions of the Coast from narra- 
tives of the distinguished navigators of their own country, or the his- 
tory of tli(> Hudson's Biiy and Russian Fur Companies, they must have 
known that the wealth of furs and tish alone would have justilied its 
purchase, to say nothing of rounding oil their North American pos- 
sessions. * * *• 

Russia acted wisely in relie\ing hersidf of a responsibility that 
brouuht little or nothing in return, (ireat lU-itain lost an inunense 



AND CANADIAN PUBLICATIONS. 201 

()l)p()rtuiiity thereby, and inherited as a coiiseciueiice tlie Behrinu- Sea 
dispute and the Ahiska Houndarv (luestion, the costs of which coni- 
bined, it is safe to say. would ha\e paid for the territory. Since that 
time Alaska has developed rich gold mines, a great fur trade, and a 
salmon canning industry that have rendered it extremely valua])le, 
wnth possibilities of much greater things. 

* ■:;■ * * i'r -T -» 

Numerous requests on the part of the Canadian ( iovernment, inspired 
by representations from British Columbia in the interests of law and 
order, were made to the United States through Great Britain, to have 
the l)oundary line delined. The question had not then been raised as 
to the Portland Canal. The latter was practically accepted by both 
parties as the projiei" boundary. It was important, owing to the interest 
taken in mining matters, that there should he no mistake as to where 
the boundary really was according to the terms of the treaty. Although 
th(> American (iovernment professed an anxiety to have it settled, and 
a bill was introduced in Congress in I8T1! to give eti'ect to a commission 
of incpiiry. nothing was done, on the ground that more important leg- 
islation demanded attention, and that Congress would not vote so large 
a sum of money as was required, something like a million and a half 
dollars. A suggestion was made by the American Government that 
in lieu of an accurate and exhaustive determination it would be '"(juite 
sufiicient to decide upon some particular points, and the ])i'incipal of 
these they suggested should be the head of the Portland Canal, the 
points where the l)oundary line crosses the Rivers Skoot, Stakeen (Sti- 
kine), Taku, Islecat and Cheelcat. Mt. St. Elias, and the points where 
the 141st degree of west longitude crosses the Kivers Yukon and Por- 
cupine." The Canadian Government was quite willing to accept the 
proposition, but for some reason or other nothing more was done, not- 
withstanding that the question was pressed time and again on tluMr 
attention ))y the Canadian Government. 

In 1877 ]\Ir. Joseph Hunter, civil engineer. Victoria, was delegated 
])V the Dominion Government to make a survey of the Stikine Kiver 
for the purpose of defining the l)oundary line wh(>re it crosses that 
river. Of course his r(>port w^as not expected to l)e final, and tlie work 
was necessarily hurried: ])ut it was important, and settled the matter 
for the time being. He fixed the boundary line at 1;>.1;^> miles from 
the coast at right angles, and 24.7-1 miles by the river. His findings 
were accepted without prejudice to the rights of their contention l)y 
the American Government, and it so stands until finally settled l)y the 
present commission. From Mr. Hunter's obserAations it is quite clear 
that there is a range of mountains running parallel with the coast, the 
summit of which forms the boundary. That I t)eli(>ve is the Canadian 
contention. The Americans, on the other hand, have claimed that 
there is no defined mountain range governing the case, and that the 
line must follow the sinuosities of the coast. 

Up to 1885 it does not appear that a line "through Portland Chan- 
nel'' was ever questioned as the true boundary line. The issue was 
raised by the late Mr. Justice (Jray. of Victoria. B. C.. one of the 
fathers of Confederation, and an able jurist. As It stands, the 
Alaska Boundary (Question presents two phases, one being the delimi- 
tation of the line from the "head of I'ortland Channel," wherever that 
may be shown to be. and the other is the inteipi-etation of Article III. 
A\'ith the foruKM- w{> will not deal. It is a matter of sui'vev. and is in 



202 EXTRACTS FROM BRITISH 

the hands of competent men. The hitter involves an interpretation of 
Chiuse III. of the treaty. 

In 1885 Mr. Justice Gray made a report to the British Columbia 
(xovermnent, in which he pointed out that the line running- through 
Portland Channel, as marked on the maps, did not harmonize Avith the 
other conditions of the Article. To understand his contention involves 
no tine legal skill; it is a plain statement. The line commencing at 
the* southernmost point of Prince of Wales Island, Cape Chacon, is to 
"asccMid to the north along the channel called the Portland Channel."' 
Portland Canal is lifty miles from Prince of Wales Island, and a line to 
there would not ascend to the north, l)ut go in a south-easterly direc- 
tion. It may be iield that it does go north on the ground that the gen- 
eral direction is north; and if no other conditions were demanded, 
that might hold good, although not strict interpretation. It. however, 
is required that tlie line is to go north along the Portland Chaimel, 
luitil it strikes the 56th degree of latitude at a point of the anit'nicnt. 
Portland Channel does not reach the 56th degree of latitude at all, and 
being wholly irltliin the continent, a line following its channel could 
not possil)ly strike a point on "the continent." Then, again, it is 
stipulated that Prince of Wales Island is to belong "wholly '" to Russia. 
There can be only one inference from that, when we consider that a 
large g-roup of islands, the principal of which is Revilla Gigedo, inter- 
venes between Prince of Wales Island and the mainland, and that is that 
some other channel than Portland Canal was intended, otherwise it 
would have ))een stipulated that the group of islands inside of it, and 
not Prince of Wales, should belong ** wholly " to Russia. The channel 
separating Prince of Wales island from these islands, or in other words, 
Clarence Straits, nuist have been meant. If Prince of Wales Island 
is to belong wholly to Russia, what about the group of islands which 
intervenes '. If, on the other hand, you discard the Portland Canal, and 
carry your line up either Behm's Canal or Clarence Straits, you meet 
all conditions, striking the continent exactly at the 56th degree of 
north latitude, leaving Prince of \A^ales Island wholly within Alaska 
territory. 

More tliiin that, the Portland Canal lioundarv, in continuing it, lands 
you into a second absurdity. As was pointed out by JMr. Justice (iray, 
the head of Portland Canal is far east of the Coast range of mountains, 
and in order to strike their sunnnit, the line would have to cross sev- 
eral interviMiing mountains, making as is shown in Mr. Hunter's map, 
a sudden dip at right angles. Continuing the boundary directly north- 
ward, from Point Chacon through Behm's Canal or Clarence Straits, 
you follow the Coast Mountain Range naturally. Every circumstance 
and reasonable assumption favors the contention that the Portland 
Canal of Vancouver's charts is not the Portland Chaiuud meant in the 
treaty. 

It is not known what mai)s were used at the convention. Doubtless 
X'ancouver's charts were. However, it is not likely that Great Brit- 
ain would concede more territory to Russia than Avhat Russian maps 
showed Russia claimed. There is in Victoria an old French map, 1815, 
copi(Hl from maps in St. I*etersl)urg bearing date of 1802, and the 
dividing line as shown thei'e is up Clarence Straits with Revilla Gigedo 
and all the islands included within the British Possessions. 

The ([uestion in this case is not one of delimitation so much as of 
construction. Taken bv themselves, the woi'ds "thi'ouuh the Port- 



AND CANADIAN ITKLICATloNS. '203 

liuid Chiimior" tire explicit, and would eoiue under the rule that what 
is plain needs no interpretation, conse((uently bindino- without cavil; 
])ut where, as in this, the provisions are inharmonious and contradict- 
ory, interpretations must be resorted to. The rules of interpretation 
are clear. We nuist take all the conditions of th(^ article and judge 
from the intention of the franiers. 

The Alaska Boundary question really resolves itself into tliree main 
physical divisions, each one of which is de])endent upon a distinct 
series of evidence oi- independent dtitti. which, taken in order, are: — 

1. The construction of the clause of the Treaty of 1825 bv which 
the line of demarcation from Cape Chacon, the southernmost point of 
the Prince of Wales Island, is to be determined until it reaches a point 
of the Continent at the 56th degree of north latitude. 

2. The determination of the line of demarcation from the last named 
point following along the coast line (see Clause III. of the Treaty 
quoted in the foregoing) until a point on the coast is reached where it 
is intersected by the lilst degree of west longitude. 

o. Fixing astronomically the lilst degree of west longitude and its 
pi'olongation northward ''as far as the frozen ocean."" 

The first of these involves, as has already been pointed out. the con- 
struction of the language of the Treaty act-ording to well-understood 
and tinnly established rules of interpretation adopted in international 
disputes of this character. This division of the subject has been fully 
dealt with in the foregoing. 

The third phase of the dispute is dependent entirely upon astronom- 
ical definition, and is a simple matter, having already been practically 
disposed of by the work of surveyors. 

The second is perhaps the most difficult of th(^ three and upon the 
x'ttlement of the dispute involved the most important issues hinge. 
Settlement rests not only upon physical data, regarding the recjuire- 
ments of which the character of the country presents many obstacles, 
but upon a judii-ial arbitrament as to what physical data ai'e admissible 
as evidence, and also as to how certain terms, such as "'coast," "ocean" 
and " sunnnit of the mountains" are to ))e construed in relation thereto. 
So far there has never been any official presentment of the respective 
facts made, as that stage of the proceedings has not yet l)een reached 
where a formal sul)mission of claims beft)i"e, or for the a[)pointment 
of, a court of arlntration is necessary, and hence there is no clear or 
authoritative definition of issues. The issues have ])een mainly for- 
nmlated in newspapers and magazines, 'and the territory in dispute 
has l)een indicated by map makers rather than jurists. The main 
fact to be observed is that the I'nited States Government have assumed 
possession, which to them has constituted the essential ■•nini- points 
of the law." 

Hrielly, however, it would appear that the r(\spective contentions are 
(these have been so succinctly and fairly outlined in a recent editorial 
on th(> sul)ject in the Victoria '" Daily Colonist" that the treatment 
cannot very well be improved upon by a layman, and tlu» li])erty is 
taken of transferring the editor's remarks to these columns): 

In a jreneral way tlie I'nited States is niiderstood to inteiul to hold that the word 
"ocean," in the treaty of 1S25 l)et\veeii (ireat JJritain and Kussia, means the waters 
inside of the ArchiiH'la.tio, that there is no "snniniit" witliin tlie nieaninir of the 
Treaty in the mountain ran<:e rnnnin'r alonj: tlie coast and within ten marine leajjues 
therefrom, wherefore tlie boundary must he drawn at a uniform distance of ten 
marine leagues from the continental coast line, disregarding the islands altogether, 



204 p:xtka("Ts from i^kitish 

wliicli liiu' would l)e parallel to tlu' sinuosities of the eoast and lienee ])Ut all the 
inlets within Alaska. The Canadian position may, in the same jieneral sense, lie said 
to l)e that l)y the word "ocean" in the Treaty the hifrh s^ea outside of the Areliipel- 
ago is meant, and that the l)oundary nuist be drawn ten marine leagues from the 
outer rim of the Arehij^elago, except where the sunnnit is nearer the coast than ten 
marine leagues, in which case the line will follow such summit. This would give 
Canada all of the inlets and even a portion of some of the islands, which latter would 
ajipear to have l)een contem])]ated liy the Treaty, for that document expressly pro- 
vides that the whole of Prince of Wales Island shall belong to Kussia. The legal and 
natural inference from this would be that the whole of the other islands might not 
belong to Russia when the line was located. A secondary claim on the part of Can- 
ada is that, admitting the water on the shore of the Mainland to be the ocean, there 
is a sununit nearer the coast than ten marine leagues, and that the two inlets above- 
mentioned extend beyond it. Should the claim of the United States, as above 
defined, l)e sustained, Canada would have no harbour on the coast between the oBth 
and (SOth parallels of north latitude. If the Canadian claim is held good the head of 
Lynn Canal and of Taku Inlet would be in Canada, and if the contention tliat the 
boundary shall not be at a greater distance than ten marine leagues from the outer 
rim of the Archipelago ])revails, Canada would own the whole of the Stikine River. 



TJie Canadian rifir of the Alaskan houndani dh^^ute as stated hy 
Hon. David J/iHs, minister of justice^ iv an intervieio icith the 
correspondent eftJie CJilcago Ti'ihvne on the I'^tli August. 1899. 

[Piiblished by the Government Printing Bureau. Ottiiwa. 1899.] 

You ask me to state to you the Canadian view of the Ala.skan 
boundary dispute. I shall not in endeavoring- to meet your wishes, 
claim to do more than express my own view upon the subject. 

vr * * * * * * 

The convention between His Britannic Majesty and the Emperor, 
was a convention settling a boundary between territories admittedly 
belonging to Great Britain and territories to which it was conceded 
that Kussia had valid claim; tliat is. the part of the continent north 
of 54 degrees 4<> minutes of north latitude. The territories south of 
54 degrees 40 minutes north latitude were territories that were still in 
controversy l)et\veen Great Britain and the United States. 

The tirst Article of this convention declares, wholly contrary to the 
action and contention of the government of the United States in refer- 
ence to-the Behring Sea. that the subject.s of the High Contracting 
parties shall not be troubled or molested in any part of the ocean, 
commonly called the Pacitic T)cean. either in navigating the same, in 
fishing therein, or in landing on the coast in parts not already occupied, 
to trade with the nati\es. 

Article H proAides that in order to prevent the right of navigating- 
and fishing exercised u})on the ocean by the subjects of the High Con- 
tracting i)arties from ))ecoming' a pretext for illicit commerce, they 
mutually agree that su))jects of His Britamiic Majesty shall not land 
at any place where there is a Russian establishment, without the per- 
mission of the Governor or Conmiandant. and that Ku.ssian subjects 
sliall not land without permission at any British estal)lishment on the 
north-west coast. 

Under these ai'ticles. the freedom of na\igation is recognized. 
Ai'ticle HI and Article IV ])rovide for the demarcation of the l)oundary 
which is to separat(^ the territ()ri(\s of the one. from the territories of 
the other. Let me read to you those articU^s in precise terms: 
* * * * * * ■ . * 



AND CANADIAN PUKLIC'ATIONS. 205 

, It will he seen tluit the stiirtini; ])()iiit is the soutlu'nimost point of 
the Isliuui called Priiiee of Wales Islaml, which Vws in 54 deo-rees 40 
minutes north latitude ar.d that this line is to ascend north. P^'om 
whence^ Wlw from the starting point — the southernmost point (;f 
Prince of Wales Island. It is perfectly true that the houndarv i;? to 
ascend north aloni>' the channel called i'ortland Channel but it cannot 
ascend north alonj;- the chaimel called Portli'iid Chiinnel by conunmenc- 
ino- at the southernmost ])oint of Prince of Wales Island, the place of 
))etiinninii', a line more than one hundred miles in leno'th running due 
east, nmst be drawn from tho southiM'n end of Prince of ^^'ales Island 
))efore Portland Chamiel can tx^ reaclunl. Tlu' first (juestion then to 
be considered is, -whether the description of the direction of the lati- 
tude and longitude of the line is to yield to the use of the word " Port- 
land Channel/' or whether the name "Portland ChanneT" must be 
.subordinated to the direction and description contained in these articles. 
If Clarence Channel, which lies iimned lately east of Prince of Wales 
Island is taken, there is an exact conformity to the description. You 
may ascend north fi'om the southernmost point of Prince of Wales 
Island along- Clarence Channel, but you cannot ascend north from the 
southernmost point of Prince of ^Vale.s Island alono- Portland Chamiel. 
You can ascend to a point on Clarence Channel as fai" as the point on 
the continent where it strikes the ^(ith degree of latitude. You cannot 
ascend Portland Channel to a point on the continent where it strikes the 
56th deg-ree of north latitude, because Portland Channel does not reach 
that far north. The difference l)etween drawing- the l)oundary from Port- 
land Channel and from Clarence Channel is this — the boundary upon 
the mainland commences where the 5(>th deg-ree of north latitude cuts 
the shore in the on(^ instance, and in the other it commences at a point 
at the head of Portland Channel which falls short of the place desig- 
nated as the place of beginning. 

By Article IV, the line is to t)e drawn so as to leav(> the whole of 
Prince of Wales Island to Russia. If a due east line is to be draW' n 
from the .southernmost point of the island, to the entrance at Portland 
Channel, these words "leaving the whole of Prince of Whiles Island 
to Russia," are surplusage, l)ecause a dueeast line would not onl\' leave 
the w hole of the Prince of Wales Island to Russia, but would leave sev- 
eral other large islands, of wdiich no mention is made, l^'ing ])etween 
this island and the mainland. If Clarence Channel is taken, there is 
an obvious reason for providing in the treaty, the words, that the 
whole of the Prince of AVales Island shall \)o left to Russia, because a 
line ascending from the southernmost point north, would cut otf the 
southeastern portion of the island, but these words have no proper 
place in the treaty if the line starting from the southernmost point of 
Prince of Wales Island is to be extended eastward to the entrance 
of Portland Chamiel. as it would not be a line "ascending north" from 
the southernmost point of Prince of \\'ales Island. It will be observed 
that this (|ualitication found in Article IV^ of the description given of 
the limitary line in Article III is unaci-ountable, if a line is tirst to be 
drawn eastward fi-om tho Prince of \\'ales Island to the entrance to 
Portland Channel. Why should this ])ortion of the descri))tion have 
been omitted altogether^ It is, I think, clear from the wording of the 
treaty, that the use of the words '■ Portland Channel" cannot refer to 
the body of water commoidy so designated, and the whole of this part 
of the description of the boundary is inapplicable. 

Let any intelligent reader with a map before him, undertake todraw^ 

26626— AP 14 



200 KXTRACTS FHOM JiKITISH 

tho line from tlic (Icsi-i'iptioii which tlic treaty I'urnislics. If he licLi'ms 
at the soiithci'iiniost point of Prince of ^\'ales Island, 'wliich lies in 54 
cl(.o-vees. 4<i niinntes of north latitude, he ctinnot frou) that point ascend 
to the north alon^' I'oi'tiand Ciiannel. The name of the channel throuj^'h 
which the line is drawn are words suhordinate to the direction, descrip- 
tion and relation of the line so drawn to the starting- point, which 
determines, in my opinion, thronuh what w atei-s the line is to so ascend 
that the whole of the Prince of Wales Island is to reniain in Russia. 
It is assumed in the words of description, found in the treat}', that the 
line that ascends to the north aiong rhe channel, can do so as far as to 
the point of the continent, where it strikes the .oOth device of north 
latitude. This is a i)oint. up on the shore, in which the Itoundai'y upon 
the mainland is to ])ey'in. and so the words are wholly ina})plicahle to 
Portland Channel, as it falls short, by several miles, of extendino- to 
that degree of latitude. The channel which lies immediately east 
of Prince of Wales Island, and through which the descriptive words of 
the treaty requires the boundary to be drawn does not extend, so that 
the geographical conditions tit in with the d(\scription in the one case, 
and do not in the other. 

By the third article the lino of demarcation is to follow the >ummit 
of the mountains, situated parallel to the coast as far as the inter- 
section of the 141st degree of west longitude; and the fourth article 
provides that whenever the sunmiit of the mountains, which extend 
in a direction parallel to the coast from the 56th degree of north lati- 
tude, shall prove to be at the distance of more than ten marine leagues 
from the coast, the limit between the British possessions and the line 
of coast which is to belong to Russia shall be formed by a line par- 
allel to the windings of the coast, and which shall never exceed the 
distance of ten marine leagues therefrom. 

It is too clear to require argument that the limitary line v.as to fol- 
low the coast range and the summit of that coast range, whether high 
or low was to l)e the boundary, when it was not more tlian ten leagues 
from the coast. In many places inlets extend throug'h canyons through 
the mountain.'., and so much of each of those inlets as would be cut 
off, by a line drawn from the summit of the mountain upon the one 
side, to the summit of the mountain upon the other, is Canadian ter- 
ritory, Ihe Vmv cannot be removed further inland, because there 
may be a gap in the mountains into which an arm of the sea extends. 
The coast I'ange approaches these inlets on each side, in most cases, 
near the waters of the ocean. WIumi you i)uss the Lymi Inlet, it will 
be found that the coast range eml)races i)eaks from lo.OiM) to 1S.()(»0 
feet high, and it does seem to me preposterous to contend that the 
provisions of the treaty can be ap])lied ])y drawing a line in the rear 
of those mountains, as certainly would be done, if the Ixnuidary 
passed around the head of Lynn Inlet. 

It is, 1 think, manifest that the framers of the treaty assumed, that 
harbours, inlets, and ai'msof the sea. would be found, when the bound- 
ary was drawn, within British territory, and certain provisions of 
the treaty were entered into u])()n this assunq^tion. 

Article VI provides that the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty from 
whatever quarter th«\v may arrive, whether from the ocean, or from 
the interior of the continent, shall, forever enjo}' the right of navi- 
gation freely, and without any hindrance whatever, all the rivers and 
streams, Avhich in th(Mr course towards the Pacific Ocean, may cross 
the line of demarcation on the liiu^ of the coast. As some of those 



AND CANADIAN PUBLICATIONS. t>(.)7 

rivers flow into licliriiiL:' Sea. it is piMtVctly olivious. that the coiitract- 
iiio- parties assuiiu'd tiiat the naviiiatioii of that sea was open to I)ritisli 
vessels. 

By Article \'II for a period of ten years, tiie \-ess('ls of the 'two 
powers, and of their suhjccts respectively shall mutually l»e at lihertv 
to freipieut all the inland seas, the gulfs, havens and cj'eeks on the 
coast mentioned in Article 111. The coast mentioned in Article 111 is 
not the entire coast of the continent, hut the coast north of 54 degrees 
40 minutes. 

By Article X e\ery British or Russian vessel navig-atino- the Pacific 
Ocean, which may be compelled by storms or by accident to take 
shekel- in the ports of the respective parties shall be at liberty to refit 
therein, to provide itself with all necessary stores and to put to sea 
again without paying any other than port and lighthouse dues, which 
shall be the same as those paid by national vessels. 

This is not a temporary arrangement but a permanent one which 
each ])arty has within the ports of the other. 

It has been contended l)v some of the United States press, that the 
waters belonging to Great Britain herein referred to, are those that 
lie south of the 54th degree 4<t minutes of north latitude, l)ut this is 
not so. Those territories were in dispute between Great liritain 
and the United States, and with reference to them no compact was 
entered into in the treaty between Russia and Great Britain. What 
is entered into is the estal)lishment of a boundary north of 54 degrees 
40 minutes, and it is with reference to this boundarv. separating the 
territories of Russia from the territories of His Britannic Majesty, 
that all the provisions of the treaty referred. — Russia made no claim, 
in this treaty, to any territories further south. She set up no preten- 
sions to any privileges further south: what was being settled was the 
dispute between Great Britain and Russia in respect to sovereign 
rights north of 54 degrees 40 minutes north latitude. The subjects of 
Great Britain were without any hindrance whatever to have liberty of 
navigating freely all the rivers and streams Avhich in their course 
towards the Pacific Ocean may cross the boundarv line, the line of 
demarcation, as set out in Article III of the convention. These rivers 
and navigable routes were not rivers south of 54 degrees 40 minutes 
north latitude, but rivers north of that latitude — rivers that flowed 
from British territory through the Russiiui territory upon the coast. 
All the provisions of the treaty relating to fishing and to navigation 
have refereni'e to the territories and waters which were the sul)ject of 
the treaty, and so it is wholly b(>side the ijuestion to refer to the con- 
vention l)etw(>en the United States aiid Ru-sia of the ]ir(nious year. 
It is as plain as anything can well be. that the contracting parties 
assumed that when the separating line came to be di'awn. under the 
treaty, that th(>re would be. in some places, harbours and inlets remain- 
ing on the British side of this boundary line, and Kussia stipulated for 
the right of Russian navigators to use them, and for her ships to take 
refuge in them, as she had conc(>ded a like right to the subjects of His 
Britannic Majesty. These would, indeed, be strange treaty stipida- 
tions. if upon the whole length of this boundary, from the 5(>th degree 
of latitude to Mount St. Elias. it never crossed an iidet. and at no 
point touched the sea. This is. in my opinion, a t-onclusion which no 
one who will eandidly examine the tr(^aty. can reach, and 1 ask a fair 
consideration of our side of the dispute by the people of tlu> United 
States, to whom justice is far moi'c important than success. 



20S EXTRACTS FROM HKITISH 

Tlie Aht^ln htiiiiijari/." 

[Frmn tlio Eiliiihurijli Kuview. Ajiril. 1900.] 



A ivfereiico to Articles III. und IV. of the treaty of 1S:>5, ((noted 
above, shows that the line, startino- from the south(M'nniost point of 
Prinee of Wales Island, is to ascend to the north along the channel 
called Portland Channel, until it reaches the o6th degree of north laii- 
tude, from which point it is to follow the summit of the mountains 
situated parallel to the coast as far as their intersection by the 141st 
meridian, provided these mountains are within ten marine leagues 
from tlu^ ocean. Should the ir.our.tains at an\' point prove to be more 
than that distance from the ocean, then the limit shall l)e a line i)aral- 
lel to the windings of the coast, from which it shall never be farther 
distant than 10 marine leagues. 

Having ascertained the southernmost ])oint of Prince of. Wales 
Island, one is suddenly confronted by the fact that l)etween it and 
Portland Channel sixty miles of open ocean intei-vene. Furthermore, 
Portland Channel lies almost due east from the southernmost ])oint. 
How then is the line joining the two to ascend to the north {^ Again, 
the line is to ascend to the north along Poi-tland Channel, until it 
strikes the 5r.th degree of north latitude. IJut Portland Channel does 
not attain to latitude o*!, and thei'e is no provision made for the course 
the line is to take between the head of the channel and the point where 
the' mountains situated parallel to the coast are crossed by that paral- 
lel. Then follow the all-important questions, (1) which are the moun- 
tains situated parallel to the coast? and (2) what is the coast? 

Without pursuing the inquiry too minutely or entering into many 
of its details, it is proposed to set down here briefly the British and 
American interpretations of this treaty, in so far as their respective con- 
tentions can be ascertained from the published views and utterances of 
public men in Canada and the Cnited States, for neither Government 
has as yet given out an oflicial .statement of its claim. 



At the outset it may be observed that there exists a very general 
agreement to the effect that the negotiators of the treaty of 1825 relied 
largely upon Vancouver's charts and the narrative of his voyages for 
their information respecting the physical features of the country with 
which they found themselves called upon to deal. liotli parties concur 
in holding C'ape Muzon to be the southernmost point of Prince of 
Wales Island, though, as a matter of fact, it is not on Prince of Wales 
Island at all, and both acknowledge that the body of Avater to-day 
known as Portland Canal is, despite the erroneous description in the 
treaty, the channel along which the line is to ascend. Here, however, 
agreement ends. The L'nited State holds that the line should enter 
Portland Channel In' what since 1853 has been known as Portland 
Inlet, which is a part of the waters named by Vancouver 'Observatory 
Inlet.' The British contention is that the Portland Channel of the 
treaty is the channel so marked on Vancouver's charts and desci'ibed 
in his narrative in terms that lea\e no doul)t iis to the ))ody of water 
to which he intended them to apply. The deflection desired by the 

(I This article is printed' anonymously, but it is understood to have been written 
at Ottawa, and to have emanated from dtticial sources. 



AND CANADIAN ITHLICATloNS. 209 

United Slates would oive to that Power the priiici])al ishuids 1\ iiij;- at 
the entrance of Porthmd Canal, and tlierebv the coniniand not merely 
of the inh't. i»ut also of the harhoui-of Port Sini])son in British Coluni- 
])ia, which, by reason of its natural advantages, is destined to heeonie 
an impoi'tant connnei'cial and strategic i)()int. 

In support of this claim it is aroucd on the side of the United States 
that the line, dcpartinu- from the southernmost point of Prince of 
Wales Island, should follow alon<4' the parallel of 5i- 40', which would 
bring it in at the mouth of Observatory Inlet. They base their con- 
tention on the fact that this latitude is expressly mentioned in the 
treaty in connexion with the point of commencement, and they urg-e 
that the reason of the omission to state that the boundary should pro- 
ceed along that parallel is that the repetition Avas considered unnecesary. 

The Canadians reply that when in the course of the negotiations of 
1828-5 Russia was forced to al)andon her extravagant pretensions put 
forward in the ukase of iSiJl. she took her stand upon the charter of 
the Emperor Paul, and claimed down to 55', To that line she stul)- 
bornly adhered throughout. Inasmuch, however, as the parallel of 
65^ cuts Prince of Wales Island near its southern extremity, tlie Kus- 
sian plenipotentiaries proposed that the portion of the island below 
that line should be included in the Russian possessions. In order to 
effect this result the starting point was fixed at the southernmost point 
of Prince of Wales Island, which happens to be in latitude of 54- 4U'. 
Thus the extension to 54- 40' was merely a local exception to tit a par- 
ticular case. For similar nnisons of convenience the continental line 
was carried south a few minutes of latitude to Portland Canal, which 
atl'ords the first natural l)oundary on the continent south of 55 . 

There can i)e little doul)t froni the text of the treaty that the south- 
ernmost point of Prince of Wales Island and not the parallel of latitude 
was intended as the point of beginning. The geographical co-ordi- 
nates are given for the purposes of identification merely. If they 
were intended to govern, the wording would be different, for the defi- 
nition of a point by geogi'aphical co-ordinates must be by the inter- 
section of two lines, and not by a parallel of latitude and two meridians 
seventy-five miles apart. Seeing that the line is to "'"ascend to the 
north."' a claim that it is first to run sixty miles due east along a par- 
allel of latitude seems manif(\stly untenable. 

Canada also contends that, having determined the point of departure 
(Cape ]\Iuzon) and also the place on the continent where the boundary 
.strikes the coast (the mouth of Vancouver's Portland Channel), it is 
agreeable to the rules of legal construction to hold, in the absence of 
any specific directions, that the line joinino these two points should 
take the shortest way. which is not a parallel of latitude. l)ut along 
the arc of a great circle. 

Following the same rule of interpretation Canada maintains that the 
head of Portland Canal and the jwint where the 5»;th degree crosses* 
the mountains situated parallel to the coast within ten niariiu^ leagues 
from the ocean, should be joiiu'd by a straight line. 

The treaty continues: 

De ce dernier i>oint (that is, tiie intersection of the nionntain.* hy theoiith parallel) 
la lijrne de demarcation snivra hi crete des nionta.<.MU'>; .eitnees ]iaralleienient a h\ cote, 
jusqn'au jioint d'intersection dn 141-e de^MV de lon^'itmle onest. 

The difticulty here lies in the fact that this whole region is highly 
mountainous. There exists not one rano(\ but manv. ri>ing one 



210 EXTRACTS KKOM HKITISH 

l>ehind the other in irrenuhir t'tishion, coiiiicctcd in niiiny phues l)y 
spurs, the whole form i no- more or le-ss a confused jumble of mountains. 

The United States, according to General Foster. tak(^s the o-round 
that the treat}' of iSrio was framed in the light of imperfect oeooiai)hic 
knowledge: that the nM)untain range depicted on Vancouver's maps as 
almost bordering the coast has no existence in fact: that there is no 
contiinu)us range or chain at all. and that consc(|uently it is nec«'ss:irv 
to fall l)ack upon the alternati\e provision of Article I\'., under which 
they claim that the l)oundary line should i)e everywhere ten marine 
leagues inland from the coast, the distance being measured from the 
head of tide water round all the inlets. It will be observed that the 
United States read this clause as if it meant that the boundary line is 
to be "everywhere not less than'' instead of "• nowhere more than "' ten 
leagues from the sea. 

The British claim is that ])y the cr^st of the mountains situated ])ar- 
allel to the coast is meant the tops of the mountains nearest the ocean. 
Great Britain denies the necessity foi* a continuous 'range' or " chain*, 
and points out that neither word occurs in the treaty. The W(>rd 
■ parallel', it holds, is not to be taken in its strict geometrical sense as 
implying equidistance. It is unnecessary to search for mountains 
which are all at precisely the same distance from the coast, foi' Article 
IV. of the treaty contemplates the possil)ility of these mountains 
being sometimes more and sometimes less than ten marine leagues 
therefrom. It is a natural fact that mountains from ;-5.(H)() to o.ooo 
feet high lying within live or six miles of the sea border the coast 
throughout its entire length. When it is borne in mind that Van- 
couver had no knowledge of the interior country, his ol)servations 
having been made from his ships, it does not seem unreasonable to 
suppose that the mountains depicted on his charts are those seen from 
the sea as fringing the coast line, to the serrated appearance of whose 
tops, heightened by their irregularity of outline, the word 'crest' is 
peculiarly applica))le. Canada holds these to lie the mountains of the 
treaty. She maintains that in delimiting this l)oundarv the summit 
ridge of each of these mountains should be taken, and the valh\vs 
between crossed by straight lines from crest to crest, whether they 
contain streams, rivers, or such arms of the sea as do not form ])art of 
the ocean. 

Thus, while Canada seeks to restrict her neighbour to a narrow 
strip of sea coast, having an average breadth of perhaps four or five 
miles, the United States claim an extensive tract of country running 
l)ack in some p!ac(\s more than a hundred miles. * " " 



litvlcii' of ill,- Ahixld Piininildrii (Jurxtntn. Bi/ Ale.vander Higg^^'' 
AnfJinf of fhr Ilisfori/ <f I>i-tfis]i Columhia. 

[From tlie Scottish Guogniphical Mairaziiu". Fel)ruary, I'.iOl, pp. 90-91.] 

As shown in \'ancouver's Afhix, she(>t 7. the w;iters of the Pacific 
ocean washed Prince of Wales Island from Cape Chacon, the southei'ii- 
most portion of tlait island, along its eastern >hores, following the 

«"Mr. Alexander Beg^, the British Cohimbian hintorian, one of the very few 
intelHjient perpon? who have studied the question from the standpoint of oiir national 
interests." The Canadian .Magazine, January, 1902, p. 291. 



AND CANADIAN ITHLICATloNS. 'J 1 1 

northern shore, and tiirninii' soutliwurd at Point I^akci'. the name 
" Puke of Clarence Strait" is uiven alone- the island from L'n\)v ("haeon 
until the .".(Uh deoree of latitude is reached opposite Cape neeision. 
On the chart refernnl to. it is recorded that Captain \'ancou\-er passed 
this point 2:^nd Septeml)er 1TU3 and ^-tth Aujiust IT'.*!. 

I'ut the treaty mentions that the boundary-line is retpiired to reach 
latitude 5<) at the coast of the continent. This is accomplished by 
passino' along- Clarence Strait and Ernest Sound to the coast. In Sir 
Charles Bag'ot's description (in Statement D) of the pro])osed line, 
to the Russian plenipotentiaries, which is recorded in a despatch to 
^Ir. (i. Canning, he says: 

It would ai)pear that a line traced fnun the southern extremity of the straits 
named i)uke of Clarence Sound, by the middle of those straits, to the middle of the 
straits that se]iarate the islands of the Prince of Wales and the Duke of York and 
the islands situate to the north of the said islands; thence towards the east liy the 
middle of the same strait to the continent, and thence prolonjred in the same direction 
and manner already ])roposed by His Majesty's plenijiotentiary to Mount Elias, or to 
the intersection of the 140th {since changed to 141st) degree of longitmle, would 
form a line of demarcation which would conciliate, perhaps in a satisfactory manner, 
the reciprocal interests, present and future, of both Empires in this part of the globe. 

There is no mention of P(n-tlaii<l Cahal or g'oing- east in the fore- 
going description. Further. ]Mr. Canning in his instructions to Sir 
Charles, dated July 1l\ iS24. distinctly' says: "His Majesty's Govern- 
ment have resolved to authorize your Excellency to consent to include 
the south points of Prince of Wales Island within the Russian frontiers, 
and to take, as a line of demarcation, a line drawn from the southern- 
most point of Prince of Wales Island, from SOl'TH to NORTH, 
through Portland Channel, till it strikes the maiidand in latitude 56''. 
The route was named Portland Channel, presiunably, as Clarence 
Strait, as we have seen, was left opposite Ernest Sound. It would be 
necessary therefore, at the point on the coast of the continent, that a 
new departure shoidd l)e made to reach the intersection of tlu^ line 
with the 141st meridian, near Moiuit Elias. 

It would api)car from article IV. of the treat}, that Stratford 
Canning- decided on the boundary from that point, being- drawn ten 
marine leagues from the ocean. The easiest, fairest, and most con- 
v(>nient plan to do that would })e to retiace the line of deviation back 
to that already run through Clarenc(» Strait, named Portland Channel 
in the treaty, and continue that line along the eastern and northern 
shore of Prince of A\'ales Island, as already outlined in this i-eview. 
Such an arrangcMnent woidd ()bviat(> the attempts of forming a bound- 
ary lim> along thi^ frontier of the continent, \\hich woidd prove useless 
and impracticable. It would leave the frontier of British Columbia 
intact, and furnish the Cnited States (instead of Russia) with ample 
facilities to carry on any industry along the large islands fringing- the 
Pacific Ocean, and along the strip of continent extending about five 
degrees of longitude from (rlacier or Taylor's Hay. l)eyond Icy vStrait. 
It woidd give tluMu anv number of excidltMit harbours, and the control 
of valuable tisheiies. and the timber on Prince of Wales Island, and 
the other ocean frontier islands north to the continent at Cross Soinid. 
The arrangement was made b(>tween two fi-iendly powers, and after 
the treaty was signed, was acknowledged to be satisfactory to each, 
and it should !)e so to the present day. although many United States 
83'mpathisers do not seem to interpret the treaty in that light. * * * 



PAPERS RELATING TO OCCUPATION ON LYNN CANAL. 



Lefteri< aiid Crrtliieafrs (jtrnt to Indinns at the Jirdd (if Li/iin CdnaJ. 

H. H. B. Co'.s, '"Steamer Otter" 

ChUcarfe Axf/u-st 1st ISOG. 
This testinionial is oiven to Caniistec to quiet him as he is bothering 
a great deal for one. lie is some son of a Cliief among the Indians 
but 1 believe not one of the old school. He would not be a l)ad ftd- 
low — if he was not such an intolleral)le niusance always bothering for 
something. But as he genin'ally has a good (juantity of skins that 
covers a nudtitude of sins: and eonsecjuently he is entitled to some 
seeming attention. 

I. Amoeey. 

('/»;</ Mate. 

I certify that tlu^ aboxe is a true copy from the origintd. 
[seal.] Sol Ripinskv, 

^Otanj I'lihl/c ill and for the District of Ala. si- a. 

Haines, Alaska, 2L:(y Sth, 1903. 



V. S. Coast Suraey "Koh-klux'' 
Kot-l'<((jh-t(>o rilhKjr. Chilhit Rii'i-r. A'H/ust 7, 1SG9. 

Befoic starting from Sitka upon the expedition to observe the solar 
total eclipse of this date at this place. Koh-klux, Principle Chief of 
the Chilkahts promised to give me his support and assistance and to 
insure a kind reception from his peo])le. 

He has fully cai-ried out his promises: vacating his principle house 
and placing it wholly at the service of the party: sujjplying us daily 
with an abiuidance of Hsh and fuel: furnishing men whenever needecl: 
and showing his good will in every instance. He is a man of great 
determination and ])ower and wi(dds a strong influence over the Chil- 
kahts who belie\e he }>ears a charmed life. lie is friendly to all Ameri- 
cans and when his contidence is gained he is good humouivd and com- 
municates information freelv. He drew for me a fair map of the 
country from the mouth of the Chilkaht to Fort Selkirk (Ghen-tub-san) 
on the Voukon. 

George Davisson 

( '(>iii(V(j 7'J.iji<'(Iitio)i. 
I certify that the above is a true copy of the original 
[seal.] Sol Ripinsky. 

Notary PuJjUc in and for thi- District of Alasla. 

Haines, Alaska, May 8th 1903. 
212 



PAPERS KELATING To (KCUPATloN (»N LYNN CANAL. 213 

U. S. Kevknui: Steamer '" Wayanda"" 

( '// Ihult. A luxhl. SrpfriH h,',' 1S68. 

This is to coi'titV tlmt the hearer '"Kakie"" is sub Chief of the Lower 
Village, and I found him quite friendly, 

" ,1. W. White. F. S. /?. .V. 

I certify that the at)()ve is a true copy of the original. 

[SEAE.J Sol KiPlNSKY, 

XoidflJ Pilhl'n\ III (I lit! for i/ir Jj/sfrict of Al(l-<l(l. 

Haines. Alaska. Mai/ Of h. WUJ. 



U. S. S. Wachuset. 
Clulcat, Ahishi, Aug. 2.'^fh, ISHI. 
The bearer Kluhn-nat is a piincipal Chief of the lower Chilkat vil- 
lages, and is hereby recognized as such, he is said to be a good man 
I hope all white men will treat him well and that he will do tlu^ same 
to them. 

Edward P. Ll'll Cnmdr CoiiKJ'g 
H. E. Nichols. (oiiKlg Pint<i. 
U. S. PiNTA, May 20, 1885. 

I certify that the alK)\ e is a true copy of the original. 
[seal.] Sol Ripinsky, 

Notary Pahl/c. In aad for tin- Jjixtr'ict of AUiJfka. 

Haines, Alaska, ALay Ofh. 1903. 



U. S. S. PiNTA, 

Chilcoot, May 18th, 1886. 
Klanat is recognized by me as the second Chief of the Chilcoot 
Indians. I consider him to ))e a responsible man and a trusty one and 
any business intrusted to him oi" his care will l>e honestly carried out. 
He is and should be the leading man among the })ackeis. and 1 hold 
him responsible for the orderly conduct of all the Indians, and to sup- 
press any and all trouble among them. 
I am confident of his integrity. 

H. E. Nichols. 
Lt. Coaarr U. S. X Comdg U. ^. S. Pinta. 

I certify that the above is a true coi)y of the original. 
[seal.J Sol Ripinsky. 

Xotary Piddle, ni and for tin- District of A/a.sla. 
Haines, Alaska. May 9t/i. 1003. 



District oe Alaska. 
Krecutlre O-ffif'i, Sitka. August 13t/i. ISSO. 
To whom it may concei'u: 

The bearer of this Kla-not- i^nd chief of the Chilcats. claims that he 
has been belied, and that if he has in any instance wronged any white 
man. it has beiMi tht> fault of the int(>r]ireter '"Cultus .lack." He 



214 PAPERS HKLATIXO TO 

appears so sincere^ in his statt'Uieiits and so oanirsUy clcclares his 
friendship for the whites that 1 am inclined to the belief that if fairly 
interpreted and honestly dealt with he will not be the cause of any 
further trouble. He has made me the most solemn promises of future 
o-ood behavior, only stipulatino- that white men ha\inp- business with 
hiiu shall l)rini>- some otliei' interpreter than "C'ultus Jack,*" upon 
whon) he lays the blame for all his trouble with the white people. 

I l)esp(>ak for Kla-not who ap])ears honest and well d(\sposed, a fair 
trial and ask that white m(Mi havino- dealini>'s with him be sure that 
])oth he and th(\v fully understand the terms of any aj>reement that 
may be made with him. 

S. (t. Swinefort), (rovrruor. 

I certify that the above is a tru(> copy of the orioinal. 
[seal.] Sol Rii'inskv, 

Xotari/ Piibri(\ in (I lid f Of tJie District of Ala,sl<i. 
Haines, Alaska, JDnj Ot!>, 1903. 



Drjws!t!on of Da rid ll-ee-shair. 
United States of America 

District (f Alaxl'd .y.y 

David Ik-ee-shaw being" first duly sworn deposes and says: I am a 
native of Alaska and a resident of Kluckwan ;ind a lunid man of the 
Karwanton family I have heard my people often speak of those medals 
which thev became possessed of in the following" manner: In earlj^ 
days three generations of chiefs back a Russian ship came up Lynu 
Canal and dropped anchor at what is now known as Pyramid Harbor, 
some of the OiKcers of the vessel sailed np the Chilkat Kiver, in small 
boat to Klukwan, and those medals were then presented to Chief 
Kith-Ia-Kah. 

Before Chief Kith-la-Kah died ht» turned over tlu^ medals to his son 
Shartrich and I David Ik-ee-shaw. received the mtnlals about 15 years 
ago from my wife's father old Chief Shartrich before his death. 

These three medals have been handed down from one to another as 1 
have said and have never been out of our famih . 

his 

Daa II) X Ik-ee-shaw. 

mark 

Subscril)ed and sworn to tx^fori' me this li^th day of May, 1903. 
[seal.] Sol Ripinsky, 

Xotiir;/ PnlAic, in and fw thr Dixtrict <f AhifdxXl. 



Erpt orator II survey of part of t/ic LnrrK^ Tat-on- 1) Ht\ l*orcv}>iii<\ BtU, 
Troxd^ Peel^ and Maehmzie rivers^ hy Williiim 0(jilvit\ 1>. L. S. 

[From Caimdian Sossional I'apers (Xo. 11) Vol. XXIII, No. 11. 1S90.] 

Ottawa, 16th Jnttj, 1880. 
To the Honoral)le The Minister of the Interior, Ottaira. 

Sir: I have the honor to sul)mit the following report of my oi)era- 
tions on the Lewes or Yukon River, in the season of ISSlT (of which a 
preliminary sketch was pnl>lished in the Annual Departmental Report 



RrSSIAX MEDALS 

accoiuiiauyinir the <l('p()sitiiiu df J)aviil J k-tn-sliaw, i)ajrt' -H- 

Kc)TK. — The lliinl meiinl meutidUed in tlu' (U'i>ositioii is similar to the smiiller <piio rciinxluced. 
Jhv oriKiiiiils will lie imKliiciMl heforo the Tril)iniMl. 





Moiiosrum of Alexander I. 



Trandatiou of inscriptiun: "Allies 
of Russia." 





Translation of inscription: "By the Grace of 
God, Alexander I, Emperor and Autocrat of 
All the Russias. 



Translation of inscription: " The Pledge of 
Happiness to all and each." — Crowned in 
Moscow, Sept. 15. 1801. 



OCCrPATION ox LYXN CANAL. 215 

for that yt'ar). and on the Tat-on-l)uc. l*oiciii)iiu'. lU'll. I'rout. Peel 
and Mackenzie Kivers diirino- the season of 1!SSS. 

1 left Ottawa on tlie :>(>th of April, 1S8T. for Toronto, where I 
remained two (hiys doin^- some preparatory work in the mat)netic 
observatory having- rehition to the maonetic observations which 1 
intended to make chirino- ide ])r()g'ress of my expedition, and also super- 
visino- some chaniies and repairs of instruments, the chief object of 
whicii was to h^ssen their wei^-ht. and tliiis facilitate })r()i>ress. 

I had to stop one d:iv at \Vinni})eo-. to obtain an astronomical transit 
(F. O. '2). On the evening of the lindof Mat I i-eached Victoria. H. C, 
where I at once set alioiit making the necessary preparations to start 
by the boat, which was advertised to leave on the 9th. The vessel did 
not arrive, however, until the 12th. I then found that she was much 
overloaded, and it was Avith some difficulty that 1 got Capt. Hunter to 
consent to take my outtit, which weighed in ail about six tons, and, 
under the circumstances, it was a real net of kiiubiess on his part to 
do so. 

Owing to the ]iea\ y load, we made slow progress, and it was not until 
the 18th of May tliat we reached Fort Wrangell, at the mouth of the 
Stikine Ki\'er. Here I parted from Dr. Dawson, whom 1 arranged to 
meet at the conlluence of the Telly and Lewes or Yukon River about 
the 20th of July following. We arrived at Juneau City on the even- 
ing of the 19th, remaining there and at Douglass Island until the 
evening of the 20th. At Douglass Island I had the opportunity of 
visiting the celebrated Treadwell gold mine and reduction works, con- 
taining one hundred and twenty stamps, wlui:h have since been doubled 
in numi)er. The output of tliis mine, with the suialler number of 
stamps, was generally estimated at about STo.OdO per montii. l)ut no 
one seemed to know the exact amount. 

.\s the boat was now much behir.d time she went direct to Sitka, 
instead of Chilkoot, as usual; thence in succession to Sitka, Killisnoo, 
Chilkat, and Chilkoot, where I landed in the moi-ning of the 2-l-th of 
Mav. and where mv work began. 



Section I. — -Ji,/-p/ortitori/ Siirvei/ from tJw ILad of Tahfa Inlct^ throuiih 
Tall/a PaSK, and doirn the Pelh/-Yxih)U Rlrcr to the Littniatlonal 
Boundary heticeen Alasla and the North- ITr.sY Trrritorles of Canada. 

On the ;!i>th of May I commenced the survey by connecting Pyramid 
Island in Chilkat Inlet with Chilkoot Inlet at Haines mission. At this 
point a Protestant luission was estal)lished some years ago; but it is 
now abandoned, owing, as I was informed, to the very unpleasant con- 
duct of the Chilkoot Indians. I could not learn that they had com- 
mitted any overt act of hostility, but it appears the missionary tried 
to relieve the sufferings of a sick Indian ciiild. Cnfortunately. the 
child died, and the father attril)uted the death to the missionary, and 
from that time acted in so suspicious a manner towards the children 
of the latter that he considered it unsafe to remain in the vicinity, and 
moved into Juneau City. 

The teacher of the United States (lovenuuent school for Indians at 
Haines mission, Col. Ripinsky, told lue he had got into trouble in the 
same way. A sick Indian to whom he administered nii^dicine at first 
became nuu-h worse, in conse(|ueuce, ap[)arenlly. of the treatment, 
and during this time the patient's relatives walked about in an excited 



21() PAPERS RELATING TO 

luumicr, insuiitV'stiiio- very unpleasant sions of h(j.stilit_v. Fortunately 
the man finally recovered, but Col. Kipin.sky has no doul)t that his life 
Avould not have been safe had he died. 

The latitude and lon^'itude of Pyi'aniid Island wei-e detei'inined in 
lsr>!) ])y a United States Coast Survey ])arty, who were sent out to 
observe the eclipse of the sun in the month of Auoust of that year. 
The position then determined is uiven in the ''Alaska Coast Pilot" as 
latitude T)'.!- 11' 4;3".(i. longitude 13:) UT' 04".5. The lonoitude was 
deternnned l)v chronometers, thirte(Mi liavino- ])een used by the expe- 
dition. What point of the Island was fixed 1 could not ascertain, so 1 
took the center. This ishmd is pvramidal in form, as seen from the 
8oiith-west or north-east, and al)out 500 yards long by 200 wide. It 
is composed of sand and clay, and rises about SO feet above high tide, 
being evidently the rcsidt of glacial action. At low tide there is very 
little water on the north side of the island, and it is only a question of 
a few years until it will cease to be an island altogether, owing to the 
constant accumulation of drift ))roiight down by the streams flowing 
into the inlet. 

To carry the survey from the island across to Chilkoot Inlet J h;id 
to get up on the mountains north of Haines mission, and from there 
could see both inlets. Owing to the bad weather 1 could get no 
observation for azimuth, and had to produce the survey from Pyramid 
Island to Taiya Inlet by reading the angles of deflection between the 
courses. At Tai3'a Inlet I got my tirst observation, and deduced the 
azimuth of my courses up that point. Taiya Inlet has evidently ))een 
the valley of a glacier: its sides are steep and smooth from glacial 
action; and this, with the wind almost constantly l)lowing liindward. 
renders getting upon the shore difHcult. Some long sights were there- 
fore necessary. The survey was made up to the head of the inlet on 
the 2nd of June. Preparations were then commenced for taking the 
supplies and instruments over the coast range of mountains to the 
head of Lake Lyndeman on the Lewes lliver. Commander Newell 
kindly aided me in making arrangements with the Indians, and did all 
he could to induce them to be reasonable in their demands. This, 
however, neither he nor any one else could accomplish. They refused 
to carry to the lake for less than >^'20 per hundred pounds, and as they 
had learned that the expedition was an English one, the second chief 
of the Chilkoot Indians recalled some memories of an old (juarrel 
which the tribe had with the English many years ago, in which an 
uncle of his was killed, and he thought we should pay for the loss of 
his uncle by being charged an exoi-bitant price for our packing, of 
which he had the sole control. Conuuander Newell told him I had a 
permit from the (ri-eat Father at Washington to ])ass through his 
country safely, that he would see that I did so, and if the Indians inter- 
fered with mo they would be punished for doing so. After much 
talk they consented to carry our stufl' to the summit of the mountain 
for *i^lO per hundred pounds. This is about two-thirds of the whole 
distance, includes all the climbing and all the woods, and is by far the 
most difhcult ])art of the way. 

On the 0th of June 120 Indians, men, women, and children, started 
for the summit. I sent two of my party with theiu to see the goods 
deliver<^d at the place agreed upon. Each carriei' when given a ])ack 
also got a ticket, on which was inscribcHl the i-ontents of the })a(d\. its 
weight, and the amount the in(li\idual was to get for cari'ving it. 



(KXri'ATloN ON LYNN CANAL, 217 

Tlu^v were iinulc t(; uiulcrsttiiul that tlu\v had to i)r()(hi<-i' thc.-e tickets 
on (leliverino- their packs, hut were not told for what reason. As 
each pack was delivered one of my men receipted the ticket and 
returned it. The Indians did not seem to understand the import of 
this; a few of therii pretended to have h)si their tickets: and as they 
could not o-et paid without them, my assistant, who had duplicates tjf 
every ticket, furnished them with receii)ted copies after examining 
their packs. 

^ '.i ■.:■ 'A Vr % * 

While payino- them I was a little apprehensive of trouble, for they 
insisted on crowdinj;- into my tent, and for myself and the four men 
who were with me to have attempted to eject: them would- have l)een 
to invite troul)le. I am strongly of the opinion that these Indians 
wouUl have been much moie difticult to deal with if they had not 
known that Commander Newell remained in the inlet to see that I got 
throuo-h without accidtMit. 



Deposit fO/i of Sol Ripi iixhi . 

Unhed States of America 

Dhtrict of Aldshi, ss. 

Sol Kipinski, being iirst duh' sworn on oath deposes and says: 1 aui 
a citizen of the United States and a resident of the District of Alaska, 
that 1 am of the age of -I'l years: that I was born in Kypin. Poland. 
That I came to the Disti'ict of Alaska in the year IcSSl. 

That in the year 1S8() I came to Haines ]\lission at the point now 
known as Haines. Alaska, as a teacher for the Ignited States Govern- 
ment in the employ of the Interior Department. 

That I have resided continuously at Haines, Alaska at a point two 
miles west of Haines, Alaska, known as Chilkiit. Alaska, ever since 
said time. 

That prior to 1886 I had been Government school teacher in the 
employ of the Interior Department, stationed in the Aleutian Islands 
in the District of Alaska at Unalaska. 

That during all of my residence at Haines, Alaska and Chilkat, 
Alaska, all of the country along the shores of Lynn (anal and the shores 
of Chilkat Inlet and Chilkoot Inlet and tributary thereto was treated as 
and und(>r the jurisdiction of th(^ I'nited States. 

That the waters of Lynn Canal and Chilkat and Chilkoot Iidets were 
frequented from time to time ))y the vessels of the Cnited States both 
of the Navy and Revenue Service and that the olticials thereon and 
those under their command at all times svhen opportunity afforded, 
rendered assistance, aid and protection to the inhal)itants of the country 
tributary to Lynn Canal and Chilkat Inlet and Chilkoot Iidet, and in 
all cases when present and their assistance could reach them, attempted 
to enforce the laws of the Cnited States, and did so enforce them. 

That although not then present I remend)er an incident of consider- 
able notoriety occui'ring about the year l8St) when onc^ Bishop Sagers 
on his way into the interior at or near Dyea, Alaska, had been slap]ied 
by an Indian Chief known as Klanot, and that thereafter the said Kla- 
not came to Haines, Alaska Avhere I was then living, and A. P. Swine- 



218 TAPKHS RELATING TO 

fi)r(l. (lovenior of the District of Ahiska caiiic to Hiiincs, Alask-a and 
caused the said Klanot to Uv taken into eustody and taken from Haines 
to Sitka. Alaska for the puri)ose of triak 

That 1 was present at Haines at t!ie time the said Klanot was appre- 
henchHl and taken into custody. 

That I have ypecitic recoUection of that expedition in Is.ST known 
as the expedition of William Qu-ilvie. That the said Ooihie was a 
British subject and arrived at Haines. Alaska sometime in the Spring- 
or early Sunmierof issT aiul was met at Haines. Alaska by the United 
States (Tunl)oat P'nit<i in command of Lieutenant (.'onnnander Ivnowles, 
and that Lieutenant (ieorge Emmons was one of the otiicers of said 
vessel. That })ursuant to the request of William Ou-ilvie the said 
Gunboat Piufn towed the supplies and persons composino- the said 
expedition to Dvea in the District of Alaska at the head of Lynn 
I'anal. That I accompanied the said part}' to Dvea, Akska, being on 
board the Plida as the guest of the captain of said vessel; and that 
pursuant to the request of the said William Og-ilvie the Pinta remained 
at or near Dvea in District of Alaska until word had been received 
nine days later that the said Ogilvie had passed safely over what is 
known as Chilkoot Pass without hindrance or dillieulty. witii the Lidi- 
ans south of said pass. 

In i-eferenee to the expedition of "William Oyihie I also rememl)er 
that a request was made of the Captain of the Phitn ))y said Ogilvie 
for periiiission to use Pyramid Island as the starting ]ioint of the sur- 
vey then contemplated by the said William Ogilvie either upon the 
expedition of 1886 or at some subsequent time when the said Ogilvie 
Avas passing into the Interior. 

That about the year 1888 I remember that a Deputy Marshal of the 
United States whose name I cannot recall, came up to Chilkat Inlet for 
the purpose of making arrests and supi)ressing a disturl)ance among 
the Indians at or near Kluckwaii in the District of Alaska. 

That with him and as Special Deputies in his possee was one Ste})hen 
York and William "I'ork; that they proceeded up the Chilkat Riveras 
far as Kluckwan. and to the l)est of my recollection failed to make 
arrests at said time, but that thereafter the Sub Chief of the Chilkats, 
one Kodowat. surrendered himself into the custody of the United 
States Authorities upon charges made in connection with said matter 
and taken to Junetiu. Alaska, and there tried l)efore the United States 
District Court for the District of Alaska. 

That I have s])eci[ic recollections of this incident for the reason that 
I accompanied Kodowat from Hain(»s. Alaska, to fluneau. Alaska when 
he surrendered himsidf. 

That 1 remember about the vear 181>1, dilHculties arose upon Cliil- 
kat Inlet in connection with the killing by one Jack Wade and 
troul)les which grew out of said killing, and that I was at that time 
residing at Chilkat owning a store at that place, and was United States 
Postmaster at Chilkat and saw the killing which occurred in front of 
or near my store. That I recollect that among others arrested was 
one Indian Tom who was arrtvsted at or near the ])oint known as Oola- 
chan Patch on the Chilkat River near Chilkat Inlet. I recollect that 
at said time thearrest was made by Jack Dalton. United States Deputy 
^Marshal, and Jack Lindsay. 

I remember that about the year 189o one F. H. Poindexter. than 
residino- at Chilkat in the District of Alaska on the shores of Chilkat 



OCCUPATION OF l.YNN CANAL. LM'.' 

IiiU't. was Unitod Statics ( 'oimnissioiicr or .Iiistice-of-lhc-lN'acc at said 
])lacc and ('xi'i'cised tlio duties of that otiicc for a numlicr of years, and 
that he took coj>iii/aiU'e of ail cases eivii and eriniiiial within his jiiris- 
dietion ai'isino-on the shores of C'liilkat Inlet oi- in tlie country adjaeeiit 
oi' tributary thereto: and that from tinu^ to time he exercised such 
jurisdiction as occasion required. I also remejn))er that during the 
incuml)(Micv of said Poindexter a consio-miuMit of licjuors belonoing to 
one William Leak was seized by .John ,]. Ilealy. Deputy rnitecl States 
]\lai-slial. and placed in the store of tb.e said l*oindexter on the shores 
of Chilkat Iidet. and thereafter said licpiors were stolen through the 
lioor of said store while under seizure. 

That as early as the year ISIU I was duly ;ipj)ointed and commis- 
sioned as a Notary Public, at Haines. Alaska, and have since that time 
until the present date exercised the duties of a Notary Public. 

That about the year 1898 i was appointed Unitetl States Commis- 
sioner at Haines, jind fronj that time until the year 11K)() I exercised 
the duties of said office and took jurisdiction of cases civil and crimi- 
nal ai-isino- u))on the shores of Lynn Canal or Chilkat Inlet and to 
points as fai' north as Pleasant Camp on the Klahena River west of 
Kluckwan in the DistriVt of Alaska. 

That dui'ino' all of my residence in Alaska 1 have had occasion to 
know and do know that the officials of the United States of all branch(\s 
of the service in the District of Alaska for the District of Alaska and 
the various United States Connnissioners" Courts for the District of 
Alaska have exercised their official authority and jurisdiction over the 
shores of Lynn Canal and Chilkat Inlet and Chilkoot Inlet unrestricted 
and unquestioned during all that time and in all countrA* adjacent and 
tributiu-y thereto as far north as the summits of the passes in the 
mountains north of the northerly termini of said bodies of water. 

That at no time during my residence in the District of Alaska have 
I ever lu^ard of or known of any official of the Canadian Government 
or of any of the British provinces or any British subject attem})ting 
to exercise official authority on the coast side of the passes in the 
mountains adjacent to said bodies of water, nor during my residence 
in the District of Alaska prior to the influx into said country known 
as the Klondike Hush, commencing in the year 1897 have I ever heard 
of any Bi'itish Official or sul)ject making any claim of authority or 
jurisdiction on behalf of the Canadian (Tovernment or any British 
pro\ince on the coast side of the sununits of the passes, in the moun- 
tains adjac(Mit to any of said bodies of water, nor prior to 1S97 diil 
there exist on the frontier of the British possessions or near the fron- 
tier of the I^ritish possessions in the country adjacent to said ])odies 
of water any Customs post or any other olfice of olHcials of the Cana- 
dian Government or of British Provinces: and so far as 1 have l)een 
able to ascertain: and that I have, during all of said time, been in a 
position to know- of the existence of such office had one existed. 

That during all of my residence in Alaska all notices of location, 
evidences of tith> and the means of enjoyment of rights have been evi- 
denced, claimed and ])rot<>cted under and by virtue of the laws of the 
United States; and all records in i-eference to titles or int(>rests in 
lands ov otliei' ])r()perty have bi'cn made in accordance with and under 
the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States in the country adja- 
cent to said bodies of water as far as the summit of the passes adjacent 
to said l)odies of water. 



220 PAPEK?^ RELATING TO 

That ill fnM|iient occasions in said couiiti'v adjacent to said bodies 
of water lia\o the Land l)e))artinent of the L'nited States to my per- 
sonal kiio\vl(Hl(;e assumed jiirisdietion of surveys and ai)i)licati()iis for 
patent of lands and that ])ateiit has issued to a portion of the hind at 
Pyramid Ilarhor and Chilkat on the shores of Chilkat Inlet, nnd that 
l)at(Mit has issued to a poi'tion of the lands on the shores of Chilkoot 
Inlet a short distance from Haines. 

That during my incumbency as Tnited States Commissioner at 
Hain(\s. Alaska. I had occasion during the absence of the Tnited States 
Commissioner at Skagway, Alaska, to there sit as l'nited States Com- 
missioner and exercise jurisdiction over cases arising in and about the 
shores of Skagway Hay in tii'^ District of Alaska. 

Sol Ripixskl 

Sui)scribed and sworn to before me this 27th dav of March, A. D., 
1903. 

[seal.] .1. J. Clarke, 

Deputy. Clerl- U. S. D/strtct Court f(>r Dlri^lon JVo. 1, Alaxh(. 
■ United States Dlstrict Court. Ahixln. 



Deposit ion of Carl Sjnilin. 

United States of America 

District of Oregon., ss 

I, Carl Spuhn, being first duly sworn, depose and sa^': That I am a 
citizen of the United States, over the age of 21 years; that in the year 
of ISSO, I with others established a Trading Post at a ])oint now known 
as Haines, or Haines Mission, which point is near the head of Lynn 
Canal, in the Territory of Alaska; at said time there were no other 
white pei'sons residing at or near said point, except those who were 
associated with me in said enterprise, and a 3'ear or two later the 
Presbyterians established a Mission adjoining our said Trading Post. 
Our place was located in what is known as Chilcoot Inlet. In the jxar 
of 1S.S8 myself and associates constructed a Salmon Cannery at Pvra- 
mid Harl)oi' in the Chilcat Inlet. In the same year M. J. Kinney, of 
Astoria, constructed a Cannery in the same Inh^t about opposite the 
one constructed by myself and associat(>s. The only exercise of 
authority by the Ignited States Officials during that time, was exer- 
cised by the Collector of Customs at Sitka, Alaska, whose authorit}' 
was recognized, and also a general supervision by Officials of the 
United States Navy, who might be stationed in the vicinity of said 
Lynn Canal. 

In ac()uiring our right to occupy the land we filed notice of location 
Avith the Collector of Customs of Alaska, which was recorded by him 
in a Hook for that purpose; there had been no surv(\v of the said lands, 
nor was there any means for us to ac(|uir(^ title thereto. All of the 
settlers which I have named recognized the (Tovernment of the Ignited 
States as having jurisdiction over said locality, as did the settlers who 
came afterwards; there never was at any time or by any person rep- 
I'esenting the Camidian Government any protest or opposition made 
or any claim by any Canadian officers either directly or indirectly that 
the lands occupied l)v us was within the Canadian Territory. It was uni- 



OCCUPATION (IF LYNN CANAL. 221 

versalh' conceded that the head of Lynn Canal being where the settlers 
above referred to were located, was upon American soil. At the time 
I located there it was ocncrally known and understood by all persons 
to l)e a fact that the Hudson's Bay C'onii)any. chartered under the laws 
of Great Bi'itain. composed of liritish sulijects. had recoo-iiized the 
title of the Russian (lovernment to all of the shores of Lynn Canal by 
accejitino- from that (Tovernment a lease of ri^ht of Fur Trading with 
the Cliilcat Indians and other Indians who inhabited said country. 

That the foregoing attidavit is true as 1 verily believe so help me 
God. 

Carl Spuhx. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th day of April, 1*J03. 

[seal] Edwin Mays, 

y^ofdri/ J*ii})l Ic for Oregon. 



Depo^'dhni of I. Jh/hrr Ilof^dil. 

United States of America 

I)i'<trlct of AJd-^l'd, .V.S-. 
L Myhre Hofstad, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes and says: 
1 am a citizen of the United States, a resident of the District oi Alaska, 
and have resided in the District of Alaska ever since the year 18yi. 
That during the year of 1893 1 was appointed Inspector of Customs in 
the service of the Treasury Department of the United States. That 
about the year 1893, while Inspector of Customs, acting under orders 
of the Collector of Customs, and in company with one Paul Kegstad. 
an Inspector of Customs, and one Wul VVatt. a Deputy I'nited States 
^Nlarsiial for the Di^itrict of Alaska, I proceeded to Dyea. in the District 
of Alaska, at the head of Lynn Canal, to look into the importation of 
liquors at that place, which was then prohibited l)y the Statute of the 
United States. That after arriving at Dyea, we ascertained that liq- 
uors had been taken from Dyea towards the summit of Chilcoot Pass, 
and we proceeded to a point on Chilcoot Pass known as Stone House, 
and there found a number of ten gallon kegs and several cases of whis- 
key, whii'h whiskey was being transported from Dyea, on Lynn Canal, 
into the interior of Alaska, over the Chilcoot Pass. That under and 
pursuant to the authority of the Unitcnl States we seized upon said 
li(juor. and there destroyed the same. trans])ortation of the liquor from 
such point to a warehouse of tlu^ United Stat(>s l)eing impractica))le. 
That to my knowledge the ofHcei's of the United States exercised their 
jurisdiction upon Lynn Canal, and as fai' inland therefrom as the sum- 
mits of the mountains adjacent to said body of water. That during all 
of 111}' residence in Alaska I have never heard of, or known of an asser- 
tion of any official authority by officers of th(^ Cantulian Government, 
or any otiier sovereignty, than the L'nited States, upon the territory 
above described. 

1. Myiikh Hofstad. 

Sutiscribed and sworn to before me this 1st day of May, 19(13. 
[seal. J C. C. Heid, 

Xoftirij PnhVic for A1a><ka. 
20626— AP 15 



222 PAPERS RKLATIX(4 TO 

Dtpo^'dion of JoJiii U. SmltJi. 

United States of America District <>f ILiiniii^ .w. 

John U. Siiiith, ])oino- first duly sworn accordino- to law, deposes and 
says that he is a eitiziMi of the United States of America, of the ag-e of 
thirty-tivc years, residing- at Ililo, on the Island of Hawaii, in the 
Territory of Hawaii. 

That in the month of June. A. I). 18l>7, he was residing- in the city 
of Portland, in the State of C)r(»gon, and (hiring that month was ap- 
pointed by the President of the United States as United States Com- 
missioner for the District of Alaska; and that subsequent thereto an 
order was issued by the President of the United States designating- 
D^'ea, Alaska, as the official residence of affiant, and that at som,^ time 
in the month of July, A. D. 18U7, said affiant left Portland, Oregon, 
for IVea, Alaska, arriving there in the latter part of said month of 
July. ^ 

And affiant further deposes and says that within a very short time 
after his arrival at Dyea aforesaid, it was reported to him that there 
were a number of Canadian officers resident at Skagway, distant by 
direct line about two miles and ))y sea about five miles from the said 
Dyea. That said affiant hearing a rumor that said Canadian officials 
might endeavor to exercise jurisdiction for all purposes over said Skag- 
way and said Dyea, visited said Skagway, said visit being made on or 
about the first day of August A. D. 1897. That upon his arrival at 
said Skagway said affiant was informed that certain Canadian officials 
had headquarters at certain tents in said Skagway, and in conseciuence 
of said information as to the residence of said officials, affiant \isited 
said tents; that upon his said visit affiant found there an official, whose 
name afiiant cannot now rememlier, who claimed to be and who 
appeared to be in cliarge of all Canadian police within said city of 
Skagway; that affiant isaccfuainted with the usual uniform of mounted 
Canadian policemen used in that vicinity at that time; that the person 
with whom affiant communicated on his visit to said tents was dressed 
in the usual uniform of the Canadian mounted police; that upon meet- 
ing said official, affiant informed said official that he, affiant, had ])een 
appointed United States Conunissioner for the District of Alaska and 
had come to Dyea to assume his duties as such Commissioner, and that 
he, affiant, hoped there would l)e no difficulty between him as such 
Commissioner and any Canadian officials over or about th(> (piestion as 
to whether the Unitcnl States officials or Canadian officials had juris- 
diction at eithei' Dyea or Skagway. That thereupon said official 
informed affiant that thei'e would l)e no difficulty relative to the ques- 
tion of jurisdiction, and that the Canadian officials resident at Skagway 
would, as soon as possible, move their headcpiarters '^ over the pass" 
and into the vicinity of LakeTagish, in order that the hcadciuarters of 
the Canadian officials should be at a point oonciM-ning which there 
could be no dispute whatever; that upon leaving Skagway the said 
Canadian officials would Unne at Skagway and Dyea some ]ierson to 
notify miners of what would be refjuired of tluMu upon arriving at 
the Customs Camp to be established in the vicinity of Lake Tagish or 
Lake Bennett, and to notify said miners of the requirements of the 
laws of Great Britain upon their passing into British territory in the 
vicinity of Lake Bennett and Lake Tagish, with their goods. 



OCCUPATION ON LTNN CANAL. 228 

That from the conversation wliieh affiant had witli said- (official, 
afhant is satisfied that said ollicial was not clainnno' jurisdiction of any 
kindover either Skao-way or Dyea; that shortly aftei- said conversation, 
.said Canadian officials and all mounted police in Skiiuway transported 
their goods and effects ovei- the pass towards Lake Bennett. 

And afiiant further deposes and saj's that on or about the 0th day 
of August, A. D. 1897, he again visited said Skag'way, and there, as 
United States Commissioner for the District of Alaska, met a number 
of persons representing themsehes to l)e citizens of the United States 
of America, who desired to lay out the town of Skagway. and to locate 
and take up lots under the town-site laws of the United States of 
America; that at a meeting held for that i)ui'pose on or about the said 
(ith day of August, A. I). ISltl, a man l)v the name of A. .1. McKinner, 
formerly resident in Seattle, in the State of Washington, was elected 
Chairman, and Dr. H. K. Littlefield, now of Portland, Oregon, was 
elected Secretar\% and affiant was elected as Recorder of town lots; that 
the survey of said Skagway was made by one Frank H. Reed; that on 
or about said 6th day of August, A. D. 18117, various persons claim- 
ing to be citizens of the United States of An)erica. did post on various 
town lots of the said city of Skagway. notices of their intention to 
locate and take possession thereof, and did file with afhant for record 
duplicate copies of said notices, which said duplicate copies were 
recorded b}- affiant in a book, which said book was delivered by affiant 
to his successor, Charles A. Sehlbrede, now a resident of the city of 
Roseberg, in the State of Oregon. 

That during all of the time affiant was United States Commissioner, 
he received location notices for record, and recorded the same in the 
manner hereinbefore set forth; that the laying out and the survev of 
said town of Skagway. and the location of lots thertMn, and the tiling 
of lov-ation notices all took place with full knowledge on the part of 
the Canadian officials, and without any protest whatever from them. 

Affiant further depos(\s and says that from the time of his first visit 
to Skagway as hereinbefore set forth, until he tinalh' ceased to per- 
form the duties of United States Commissioner in the month of May, 
A. D. 1898, he, as United States Commissioner, from time to time 
held Court in said town of Skagway, and exercised full jurisdiction as 
such Commissioner. That during all of said time persons dressed in 
the uniform of Canadian officials, and generally known as such, visited 
said town of Skagway, l)ut never, on any occasion, attempted toexer- 
cise jurisdiction therein, or to interfere in aiu' manner with the juris- 
diction of affiant as United States Conuuissioner; that affiant kept a 
docket as such Conuuissioner which said docket was deliv<M'e(l to his 
successor hereinbefore named. 

And affiant further deposes and says that at the time of his first visit 
to Skagway, and up to the time he left Alaska in ^lay, A. D. 1898, 
the land on which the town of Skagway is located was never claimed 
or held save and except l)y persons claiming or holdingunder the laws 
of the United States of Aiuerica: that part of the land on which the 
town is situated was claimed by one Bernard !\Ioor«\ under the laws of 
the United States for a trading post, and that the said Bm-nard Moore 
was the only person claiming any rights in any land on which the town 
of Skagway is located, other than persons claiming town lots under 
the town-site laws of the United States; that at no time during affiant's 
residence in Alaska did tiny British citizen, or any person whomsoever, 



224 PAPERS KKLATING TO 

claim any of said lands l»y \ irtiu' of the laws of Groat Hritain or the 
Dominion of Canada; that the fact that such lands were claimed hy 
virtue of the laws of the United States of America must have heen 
known to Canadian othcials, who visited Skagway frequently, and that 
no Canadian ofhcial, to the knowledge of affiant, ever made any pro- 
test whatsoever to said land beinf»' claimed under the laws of the 
United States of America. 

And atiiant fui'ther deposes and says that from the said town of 
Skagway, leading inward and northerly to Lake Bennett, ran a trail 
known as ''White Pass TraiU', about thii'ty-hve miles in length: that 
the said trail was built, to the knowledge of affiant, by citizens of the 
United States residing at Skagway; that during all of the time athant 
resided in Alaska, he heard no complaint of interference by Canadian 
or British ofHcials with any person passing over said trail, and at no 
time heard of any attempt on the part of Canadian or British officials 
to enforce the Customs laws of Great Britain against persons passing- 
over said tiail; that at no time was any com])laint made to aftiant as 
United States Conunissioner by any citizen of the Ignited States, or 
other person, that Canadian or British ('ustoms ofhcials were endeavor- 
ing to enforce British or Canadian Customs laws, or other laws against 
persons passing over said trail; that affiant as such United States Com- 
missioner exercised jurisdiction over said trail and all offenses com- 
mitted thereon, and in one instance directed citizens of the United 
States who had closed said trail for purposes of repair, to open the 
same for the passage of an American citizen and his livestock; that in 
all instances where reports were niade of offenses committed along- 
said trail, afhant assumed jurisdiction, issued warrants for the arrest 
of such offenders, and the deputy Marshal of the United States for 
said District served the same. 

And afhant further deposes and says that upon liis arrival at the 
head of Lynn Canal he found the land on which was subsequently located 
the town of Dyea in the possession of the ffrm of Healy & Wilson, 
with Samuel Herron as manager, the said ffrm conducting thereon a 
packing and trading business; that the members of said ffrm and the 
manager thereof wei'e American citizens; that afffant was informed 
that the said land had l)een in the possession of said ffrm for from ten 
to fffteen years; that upon the arrival of afffant at Dyea he found a 
United States Post office, of which the said Samuel Herron was 
Postmaster. 

And affiant further deposes and says that at some time in the month 
of September, A. D. 1S!>7, the town of Dyea was laid out under the 
town-site laws of the United States of America, in a manner similar 
to that of the town of Skagway hereinbefore described; that the sur- 
veyor who sui'veyc^d the town of Dyea was one P>. F. Flood; that afffant 
was Recorder of said town of Dyea, and recorded instruments in 
regard to town lots in the same manner as at Skagway; that during 
all of the t'uuo of his i-esidence in Dyi^a, afhant from time to time held 
court as Unitcnl States Conunissioner, keeping a docket as such Com- 
missioner, which docket Avas delivered to his successor; that during 
all of said period Canadian olticials visited Dyea, and were acquainted 
with the fact that said afffant was holding Court as United States Com- 
missioner, and at no time made an}' protest relative thereto. 

And afhant fui'ther deposes and says that, extending inward and 
northwardlv from D\'ea to Lake Lindei-man. a distance of thirtv miles. 



Orcri'ATION ON LYNN ("ANAL. 225 

was a trail over a pass known as C'hilkoot Pass: that dui-ini^- all of tlie 
time atfiant acted as Commissioner in and for the District of Alaska, 
he exercised jurisdiction over said trail, and issued, and had sei'ved, 
warrants for the arrest of persons charo-cd with breach of the laws of 
the United States occurring on said trail; that about fifteen miles dis- 
tant from said Dvea. and on said trail, was a settlement known as 
Sheep Cam]); that afhant on several occasions tried persons accused 
of the conunission of crimes at said Sheep Camp; and that on the "Jnd. 
clay of Januarv, A. D. ISOS, alHant, as Conunissioner, visited said 
Sheep Camp and performed a marriage ceremony there; that on 
numerous occasions said Conunissioner sent a de})uty United States 
Marshal along- said trail for the purpose of making- arr(>sts; that of the 
deputy marshals who acted in conjunction \\\t\\ attiant. he, the said 
iffiant, now remembers the name of A. A. Richards, formerly of 
Idaho. H. J. Mclnnis. formerly of Portland. Oregon, John Cudahee, 
formerly of Seattle. Washington, and John W. Snook, still at Skagway. 

And afHant further deposes and says that the fact that he exercised 
jurisdiction over said trail leading to Lake Linderman was well known 
to persons representing tiiemselves to be Canadian otticials. as such 
officials constantly visited Dyea; that at no time did any sucli officials 
in any manner protest against the actions of the affiant, and at no time, 
to the knowledge of attiant, did such officials themselves attempt to 
exercise any jurisdiction over said trail, except that, a short time prior 
to the date when affiant left Alaska, in May, A. D. 1808, attiant was 
informed that Canadian officials were on the sununit of Chilkoot Pass, 
about eighteen miles distant northerly and inland from Dyea, and 
attempting to collect toll from miners under the Canadian Customs laws. 

And attiant further deposes and says that ottenses of many kinds 
w^ere being constanth' connuitted along said trail, and that the Cana- 
dian officials in that section of the country nuist have had knowledge 
that such ottenses were being committed; that at no time did any 
Canadian otticial arrest anv person charged with the conunission of 
any ottcnse, or in any manner attempt to prevent the commission 
of ottenses or punish ott'enders. 

And affiant fnrther deposes and says that neither the assumption of 
jurisdiction l)y the United States officials in Dyea and Skagway and 
over l)oth of said trails, nor the failure of the Canadian officials to 
assume jurisdiction, nor the failure of said Canadian otticials to make 
any protest whatever, was in any manner the result of any fear on the 
part of said Canadian officials that the officials of the United States 
would forcibly assume and continue to exercise such jurisdiction; that 
during all of the time said affiant was in Alaska the Canadian otticials 
in the vicinity were much more numerous than the officials of the 
United States, and that had said Canadian otticials desired to have 
assumed and exercised jurisdiction. tluM'e was at their disposal a suffi- 
cient luunber of Canadian police to have forcibly ejected from any of 
the territory all otficers of the Uhited States, and to forcibly have pre- 
vented said United States otticials from acting-. 

And affiant further deposes and says that in the month of Septem- 
ber, A. D. ISOT, he received instructions from both the Commissioner 
of the United States General Land Office at Washington, Hon. Binger 
Hermann, and from Burton E. Bennett, United States Attorney at 
Sitka. Alaska, directing afKant to investigate an alleged illegal cutting 



22(i PAPERS RELATING TO 

of timber on Amcrifun torritorv; that, for the purpose of making 
.such in\estioatioii. atHant proceeded bv the trail over Chilkoot Pass 
to Lake Ijinderman. thirty miU's distant from Dyea. })eino- accompa- 
nied by Deputy Marshal A. A. Richards, and Assi>;tant United States 
Attorney Alfred J. Daly: that upon his arrival at I^ake Lindernian, 
affiant foiuul American citizens en<>aged in cuttinL>- tinil)er. lloatino- it 
down a sn);dl creek to the head of Lake Linderman. and there sawing 
it into hnnl>er l)y hand; that whiU^ at Lake Linderman said affiant met 
a man known as Capt. Strickland, a\^k) represented himself to l)e, and 
who appeared to be, a Canadian oiiicial, in charge of all other Cana- 
dian officers in that vicinity: that wdiile in conversation with Strick- 
land at Lake Linderman, affiant aud Strickland were approached by a 
man claiming to be a miner, who represented to them that certain 
Indians had i)Ossession of his provisions and other })roperty at Lake 
Linderman, and were holding possession of them under an unfounded 
claim: that said miner further stated that he desired the return of his 
goods, and desired the proper officers to take the necessary steps to 
secure him his rights: that thereupon the said Strickland in the presence 
of affiant refused to have anything to do with the controversy: that 
thereupon, to the knowledge of the said Strickland, and without pro- 
test from him, the said affiant, as Commissioner, assumed jurisdiction, 
and settled said controversv: that no record of said case was made, 
however, because, upon affiant's assuming jurisdiction, the parties con- 
cerned amicably settled the entire matter. 

And affiant further deposes and says that some time about the first 
of Octobei'. A. D. 1S1>7, while affiant was at Dyea at the house occu- 
pied by him as an ofHce, he was \isited by a man by the name of Bevan, 
Avho claimed to be, and who affiant believes to have been, an Inspector 
of Canadian police; that said Bevan discussed with affiant the (juestion 
of jurisdiction over that part of the country, in order that there might 
be no clash; that said Bevan stated to affiant that the British Cohnnbia 
officials had received orders to assume jurisdiction up to a certain line; 
that thereupon affiant and said Bevan made a rough drawing or map, 
intended to represent the line where the jurisdiction of the United 
States ended and the jurisdiction of Canada commenced: that in said 
conversation it was agnHnl that the United States should exerciser jur- 
isdiction over both trails to the head of Lake Bennett and of all of the 
portages between the two Lakes Bennett and Linderman; that .said 
]T)ugh map or drawing was prepared partly by affiant and partly by 
said Bevan, and was intended to show Lake Bennett and Lake Linder- 
man. the Skagway trail and the trail over the Chilkoot Pass to lake 
Linderman, and also the line dividing the jurisdiction of the United 
States and Canada; that affiant is unable to state who made the draw- 
ing itself, but remembers distinctly that the line dividing said jurisdic- 
tion was mad(> ])y said Bevan, and that the woi'd "'Skagway" written 
on .said drawing, intended to represent the Skagway trail, was written 
by the said Bevan; that attached hereto, marked Exhibit ''A"" and 
made a part hereof, is the .said map or drawing, in exactly the .same 
condition as at the time it was made. 

And affiant further deposes and says that, upon said Bevan depart- 
ing, he. affiant, made a memorandum of the occui'rence. and read said 
memorandiun to all ])ersons who had l)een present at the conversation; 
excejit Bevan. his guide, and W. J. Jones. Inspectoi'of Customs, there 
wer(e pr(\sent at said conversation Ix^tween affiant and said Bevan the 



OCCUPATION OX LYNN CAXAL. 



227 



follow! no- persons: Inspector Be van and ^uide, affiant, A. A. Richards, 
U. S. Deputy Marshal. W, J. Jones, Inspector of Customs for the 
United States, E. T. Casey, of Denver. Colorado, and John Herberoer, 
of Dyea. now resident at Skai>way: that affiant has preserved said 
memonuidunr. that the same is attached hereto and marked Exhibit 
*'1V; that said memorandum is in exactly the same condition as when 
completed, save and except that the words on the l)ack thereof "Bet 
Sept 1 t^c Dec 1" were phiced thereon by affiant a few da^'s ago; that 
said memorandum fairly gives the substance of the conversation referred 
to above, and was prepared and written by affiant within tive minutes 
of the time said conversation took place. 

And affiant further deposes and says that during the time he resided 
in Alaska many deeds conveying title to real estate in Dyea and Skag- 
way, Sheep Camp and Ilaynes Mission were tiUnl with him for record, 
and by him recorded: that the book in which the same were recorded 
was delivered ])y affiant to his successor; that a discussion and news- 
paper controvers}' arose as to whether or not said deeds should 1)8 
recorded wdth affiant or with the United States Commissioner at 
Juneau, and that by reason thereof the knowledge that said deeds 
were being Hied for record with a United States official must have 
come to Canadian officials: and that at no time was any protest made 
by said officials against such transfers of land or against the recording 
thereof with officials of the United States: that at no time while affi- 
ant Avas in Alaska did Canadian or British officials establish any office 
or place at which land at any place mentioned in this affidavit and over 
which affiant exercised jurisdiction, coukl be taken up under their hiAvs, 
nor was any office or place established at which transfers of any such 
lands could be registered under British or Canadian laws. 

John U. Saiith 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this -ith day of May, A. D. 1903. 

[seal.] i\. B. Maling, 

CIcrl United States District Court, Territory of IJavxiii. 



(Exhibit "A") 




228 PAPERS RELATING TO 

(Exhibit "• H*") 

MEMORAXDIM. 

In the presence of Inspector lievan and ^niide, J. U. Smith, V. S. Coniniissioner, 
A. A. Richards, U. S. Deputy Marshal, W. J. Jones, Inspector of Customs for the 
United States, E. T. Casey, from Denver, Colo., and John Ilerberirer, of Dyea, an 
a^'reement was made and it was understood that the jurisdiction of the United States 
Oliicers and the Canadian Ollicers should l)e as per attached drawin<)r at Lake Ben- 
nett and Lake l>inderman. The line marked "Skau;\vay" l>y Bevan means the 
iSkaijway Trail, and the line crossing at the head of Lake Bennett is the point at 
which the British Ofticials have received orders to assume jurisdiction, from which 
it will apiiear that the United States Officers are to exercise jurisdiction over both 
trails to the head of Lake Bennett and all of the portages between the two lakes. 

This memorandum was written within five minutes after the conversation was 
held, and in the presence of Messrs. Smith, Richards, Casey and Herberger. 



iJtposifion of J (linen W. Keen. 

I, James William Keen, a citizen of Seattle, King- County, of the 
State of Washington, of the United States of America, do make atti- 
davit as follows: — 

I was in the employ of the Hudson Bay C'ompany from 1S5S to 18H3, 
during which time I was on board the Hudson Bay Company's steamer 
" Labershere '" trading- along the Coast of British Columbia and the 
Russian American Coast and Islands, from Portland Canal to Chilcat 
and Cross Sound. We made from three to four trading trips yearly, 
during the spring, summer and fall, visiting Stickheen, Sundum, 
Tarku, Pyramid Har])or and Swanson's Harbor, as it was permitted 
us by the lease from the Russians to trade with the Stickheen, Tarku, 
Chilcat and Hoonah tribes, but while we were not legitimately allowed 
to barter with the Island tribes, as we understood, we did include 
in these cruises the following points where we met the natives and 
traded with them: — 

Security Bay ) 

Cape Bendle )- inhabited by the Kehk tribe 

Cape Fans haw ) 

Tsar ta heen — inhal)ited l)y the iVuk tribe 

Pavlolf Harl)or I • i i -,. i i ^.u xr i. u 4. *. -i 
T-.,,- mhabited bv the Hootz-ah-tar tribe 

Killisnoo \ 

Traders Island — The Sitka ti'ibe came here to trad(^ 

The Mainland Coast north of Portland Canal, including all of the 
Inl(>ts and l)ays, and Islands of the Alexander Archi])elag() were 
always considered and spoken of by the Hudson Bay Company's 
employees as Russian Territory, and we considered that we had only 
the privilege to trade therein. The Hudson Ba}^ Company never 
exercised any jurisdiction over this Territory or the native inhabi- 
tants therein. During this period, from 1858 to 1863, the Hudson 
Bay C<Mnpany maintained no post on shore within these limits. At 
Pyramid Harbor as well as at the other Mainland points, the natives 
were recjuired to come on l)oard ship to trade. The officers and men 
were never permitted to go on shore exce])t when absolutely itecessary. 

Upon the transfer of Alaska to the United States. Capt. Lcwds of 
the Hudson Ba}' Company Steamer "Otter'' was i)ermitted to visit 
Alaska to settle all outstanding debts with the natives, and it was 



OCCUPATION ON LYNN CANAL. 229 

reported that he stated to the natives that this was the oljject of his 
visit, as the country had been sold l)y Russia to the United States. 

In 1S(U). I was pilot on hoard the'U. S. S. Saginaw, (apt. Kichard 
Mead, U. S. Xavy. Comniandino-. The ship visited Pyramid Harbor 
for the purpose of takinu- prisoners any natives concerned in the kill- 
ing of two white men on Admiralty Island about tiuit time. 

In 18()!>, while master of the trading schooner "Sweepstakes" I 
accompanied Secretary Seward and party, consisting of General Jeti' 
Davis, U. S. Army, lienry Kiidvead, and Capt. Dall to the Chilkat 
village of Cluckwan. I also acted as interpreter upon this occasion. 
When Secretary Seward informed th(> Chilkat chiefs that the United 
States had purchased all of Alaska from Russia, one of the old chiefs 
replied — "Yes, the Russians stole it from us; they were big thieves 
and sold us as though we were all slaves, as this was only their coun- 
try in white man's fashion." 

James W. Keen. 
State of Washington, 

County of K'nuj^ .s-v. 

I, W. H. Llewellyn, a Notary Pul)lic in and for the State of Wash- 
ington, residing at Seattle in the above named County and State, duly 
commissioned, sworn and (jualitied. do herel)V certify that on this fifth 
day of May A. D. 1H»)3. l)ef()re me personally appeared James W. 
Keen to me known to be the individual descril)ed in, and who executed 
the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he signed and 
sealed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and 
purposes therein mentioned. 

Given under my hand and official seal this fifth dav of Mav A. D. 
1903. 

[seal. J W. H, Llew^ellyn, 

JS'otarii PiihUc In and for the State of Washington, 

residing at Seattle in said County. 



Deposition (f IIiK/h ^rui'iuii/. 

State of California 

City and County of San F'rancisco, ss. 
Hugh Murray, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: 
1 am familiar with the location referred to in the annexed map, and 
have l)een familiar with it for more than ten (10) years last past. 
This map^' is a correct representation of the head of Lvnn Canal, 
Alaska, showing Pyramid Harl)or and the adjacent country, and also 
shows correctly the location of the United States surveys one (1). two 
(2), three (3) aiid four (-t). Pyramid Harlxn- is the only safe harbor 
on Lynn Canal in length over one hundred (lOO) miles, and is very 
near the head of the navigable w^aters of that canal. 

Hl(;ii Mukkay. 
Subscribed and sworn to ])efore me this ;sth day of May, A. I). 1903. 
[seal.] Geo. E. Morse. 

United States Comrnissionrr for tJie 
Northern District of California at San Francisco. 



a For reproduction of the map referred to in the foregoing affidavit see Map No. 
82 in the Atlas accompanying this Countci- ( "k'^c 



230 PAPERS RELATIISKJ TO 

Dt'poKit'ion of IIu(//i 2[>in(n/. 

State of Califokxia 

City and County of San l^nmcisco^ m. 
Hugh Mukkay, being- fiivt duly sworn, deposes and says: 
I am a white male citizen of the United States, aged fort^-nine (-1-H) 
years, and my post office address is No. 308 Market Street, San Fran- 
cisco, Califoi'nia; 

I am l)y occupation, superintendent of the salmon cannery at Pyr- 
amid Harbor, Alaska, and I have been such superintendent since the 
year 1888. In that 3'ear I went to this place as sui)erintendent and 
part owner of the Chilkat Canning- Compan}', for whom I built a can- 
nery in 1889 at a point on Chilkat Inlet, nearly opposite Pyramid 
Harbor. When 1 went there, there were alread}' two canneries in 
operation, one at Pyramid Harbor belonging to the Pryamid Harbor 
Packing Compan}' and the other belonging to the Chilkat Packing 
Company. I was informed that each of these canneries had been there 
four or live years tind they are among the first of the salmon canneries 
built in Alaska. The value of the improvements at these points was 
approximately as follows: 

Pyramid Harbor Packing Companv .?40, 000 

Chilkat Packing Company * ?25, 000 

Chilkat Canning Companj' $35, 000 

and there was annually canned and exported by these three canneries 
about 5.5,000 cases of sabiion. The salmon was caught in the Inlet 
and in the Chilkat River by the Indians and by fishermen who were 
l^rought up from San Francisco. 

In 1888 there was a small settlement of American citizens at Haines' 
Mission and a small trading post at Dyea. At Haines' Mission there 
was a missionary establishment where there were about twenty-five 
Americans who lived there the year 'round and there were numbers of 
Indians who went to school at the mission. 

Dyea was the point of departure into the interior over the Chilkoot 
Pass and was a trading post of some importance. Since that time 
these places have become much more populous and the town of Skagua}" 
contains about 2500 people. 

I have known F. H. Poindexter. He came to Pyramid Harbor 
before I did and his place was adjacent to mine. He was a Justice of 
the Peace as an American official, and had an office and exercised his 
authority as such Justice in disposing of the cases which came within 
his jurisdiction and which chiefly concerned the Indian litigants. I 
have personally attended a trial in his court and he continued to act as 
such Justice of the Peace until he left Alaska in or about the vear 
1890 or 1891. 

I know many of the Indians who live in this vicinity and who ha\e 
resided there all their lives. I have never heard from them or from 
anyone else that the Canadian officials ever claimed jurisdiction over 
any of said territory or made any opposition to the acts of the Ameri- 
cans in settling there. I have myself never seen a Canadian ofhcial in 
that country who was acting in his ofHcial capacity. 

About eighteen or twenty miles above Pyramid IIarl)or there is an 
Indian village called Kluckwane. It is very near the boundary line 
between the American and British possessions, as we have always 
understood that line: beino- on the American side. At this village 



OCCUPATION ON LYNN CANAL. 231 

there are some old Russian brass cannon, wliieli the Indian*; have told 
nie were placed there bv the Russians prior to the cessions of the 
Unit(>d States. 

I am familiar with the surveys made by (J. N\ . (iarside. United 
States Deputy Surveyor for Alaska in the year lSi»l. known as sur- 
veys numbers one (1). two (2), three (8) and four (4). At that time, 
I was superintendent of a salmon caiiju^rv at Pyramid Ilarboi-. Alaska. 
I art'orded Mr. Garside at that time the assistance of two or three of 
my emplo3'es, to be used as chain-men and bi'ush-men. These men 
were employed about eight or nine days in assisting- Mr. Garside in 
making- surveys numbers one (1), two (2), three (3) and four (4). I 
saw Mr. Garside and my several employes, whom I have allowed Mr. 
Garside to select as assistants in surveying, actually at work making 
the surveys referred to. In fact, Mr. Garside frecpiently consulted 
me with reference to matters connected with surveys numbers one (1), 
two (2), three (3) and four (4). These surveys were made by jNIr. 
Garside, as above stated, in 1891, and to the best of my present 
recollection were made about the month of October, 1891. 

Hlgii Murray. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 21st dav of Mav A. D. 
1903. 
[seal. J J. Manley, 

Lri'itt'd States Coiinnl^sloiier for the 
Nortln'i-n District of ('aUfornla^ at San Francisco. 



Dc2)ositi(rri of Hear II F. Fort maim. 

State of California 

City and County of San Francisco, sx: 

Henry' F, Fortmann, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: 

I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of forty (40) years, 
and my post office address is No. 308 Market Street, San Francisco. 

I am President of the Alaska Packers Association, a California cor- 
poration, and have been President of the Association ever since it was 
incorporated in 1893. 

I am familiar with the location of the canneries at Pyramid Harbor 
on the Lynn Canal, Alaska, and have been for many years past familiar 
with the l)usin(\ss there cai-ried on and th(> general nature of tlu» improve- 
ments in and al>out the harbor. 

Pyramid Harbor is located on the western shore of Chilkat- Inlet, 
Lynn Canal, and is l)y far the liest harbor on Chilkat Inlet, — having 
good holding- ground, sufficient depth of Avater and protection from 
wind through the high blurts surrounding- it. Our cannery, as shown 
by the map, is located on the southern shore of the harbor. The map 
of ISDI shows that Pyramid Harbor is almost at the head of dee]) water 
navigation. — the water shallowing uji rapidly about a mile al)Ove the 
cannery. The cannery site owned by us covers almost the entire level 
land which could lie used for landing or industrial i)ur])oses. The 
blurts on the east shore of Pyramid Harbor I'ise abruptly from the 
water. Our title to the location is derive<l as follows: 

M. .1. Kinney of Astoria prospected the Chilkat Inlet for salmon in 



232 



I'A1M':KS RELATlXa TO 



1882, tuul built a house on tlic present ctinnerv locution. The North- 
west Trading Company, which was doing- l)usine.ss at that time at Kil- 
lisnoo, Alaska, followed him and built a eaniiorv in 1883. This cannery 
was sold to the Pyramid Harbor Packing Company. (D. L. Beck & 
Sons of San P^rancisco, Agents), in 1888. This company had the first 
survey in Alaska made by I). N. (larside. United States Deputy Sur- 
veyor, in October. 18111, under the first land law for Alaska ai)proved 
March, 18yi. The plant has l)een sold to the Alaska Packers Associ- 
ation, who are now the owners. The land office, holding that the 
original survey included moi'e land than was necessary for the busi- 
ness, requested that an amended surve}' should be made and filed, 
which was done in August, 1897, and the copy of the plat of the 
amended survey will show the changes. The third plat shows the 
improvements as existing at the beginning of the year, 1808. 

The present permanent improvements are practically shown on this 
latter plat, consisting of large cannery, wharf, warehouse, lodging 
house, mess house, store house, l)lacksmith shop, China house, and 
various other small l)uildings. They are sul)stantially constructed, 
princi])ally of iron. This construction has ])een ver\' costly, on account 
of the necessit}^ of transportation of the material and labor from San 
Francisco — none being obtainable in the country. Quite an extensive 
and remunerative business has been developed there, as showMi by the 
following figures: 

Pack of seaxon. 



Cases of Salmon. 

1883 3, 800 

1884 H, 000 

] 885 Not operated 

1886 8, (iOO 

1887 5, 000 

1888 19, 300 

1889 13, 400 

1890 12, 300 

181)1 18, 300 

1892 28, 964 



Cases of Salmon. 

1893 13, 668 

1894 38, 781 

1895 35, 373 

1896 47, 456 

1897 37, 456 

1898 39, 669 

1899 53, 237 

1900 55, 601 

1901 30, 709 

1902 32, 211 



The number of men directly employed at the cannery is about 2»)0. 
In addition to this about 300 Indians are engaged in fishing, who sell 
their catch to the cannerv, or periodically are given other emplovment. 

The Steamers "Elsie" and "Chilkat" and Launch 'M. W. Clark" 
arc used by us at Pyramid Harbor, and were especially built for the 
cannery business, and in addition to the same 100 large boats and 
lighters are used by our comi)any at this place. 

Up to 1892 the ti'ansportation of the material and la1)orers up. and 
the finished output and laborers down, was done in a desultory way by 
coast vessels. 

In 1892 the Steamer Jennie was used for this purpose, 



1893 ' 


' Bark Frentio 


1894 ' 


' Ship 


./. a J'otfer 


1895 ' 




a 


1896 ' 




Tiro JirotlierK 


1897 ' 




Iiirinrih/e 


1898 ' 




" 


1899 ' 




7'//v> Brofliers 


1900 ' 




" 


1901 ' 




Orieiitiil 


1902 ' 




" 


1903 ' 




Star of Fraitce 



OCCITPATION ON LYNN CANAL. 233 

The Ignited States Fish C'ominissioner's Stoaincr " Alttatross,'" Cap- 
tain Joti'i'i-son F. Moscr coiiiniaiuliiiu'. made ({iiito cxti'iisivo iiivostio-a- 
tions of tills district, and copies of the reports are on tih' in the Fnited 
States Fish Coniinissioner's otHce, which would verify and \-erv likely 
add considerable to these statements. 

The cannery and location is by far one of the best and most exten- 
sive in Alaska. The cannery is thorouo-hly e(iiiipp(Hl with the most 
modern machinery, electric lioht plant, etc. 

The cannery locations and the l)usiness carried on at this point liave 
been very well known to all of the people wlio are familiar with Alas- 
kan atlairs, for many years. No interference has ever been attemj^ted 
to our possession and use of these locations, nor was there any adverse 
tile by any one during- the period of publication of postino- for the pur- 
<-hase from the Government of these surveys. Our predecessors in 
interest settled upon the land, and w'e have made the improvements 
under the belief that the territory belonged to the United States: nor 
did we ever know of any question of this l)Oundarv line until the com- 
mencement of the gold excitement of the Klondike in the year 1897. 
Pyramid Harbor is the terminus of the Dalton 'J' rail, which runs into 
the Yukon, and over which a large number of prospectoi-s go. 
Through our sutferance all this landing of passengers, freight and live 
stock has been made upon our survey, which is the only available 
place ill that neighborhood. 

Henry F. Fortmann. 

Subscril)ed and sworn to liefore me this Sth day of May, lli(>3. 
[seal.] Geo. E. Morse, 

United States Conanusionerfor the 

Novthei'v Dhtriet of California. 



Depox'ition (fjoha J. ILah/. 

State of Illinols. Cool- Comity. f<><. 

John J. Healy, a citizen of the Tnited States of the Territory of 
Alaska, lieing duly sworn, deposes and says: I hrst went to the Ter- 
ritory of Alaska in the winter of I8S0-6. I landed at Juneau and 
thence visited Sitka, returning to fluneau on the same steamer. Soon 
after my arrival 1 l)Ought a schooner for the purpose of exploring- and 
trading, and after obtaining at Sitka a license for her, 1 went to Haines 
Mission about April or May 188«5, where I found a trader named 
George Dickinson, an Ame^^ican citizen; his wife was an Indian and 
was very prominent as a missionary woman. Dickinson remained 
there till the time of his death. t)eing a resident for ten or twelve 
vears. Haines' Mission is situated on Portage Hav at tlu^ head of Lvnn 
Canal. 

Soon after my arrival, in May 1880 I estal)lislied a trading-post at a 
place now called Dyea, forming a partnershi]) under the name of Healy 
c'c Wilson with Edgar Wilson, a native of Ohio and a \eteran of the 
Ignited States Armv, who resided at Dyea uj) to the time of his death 
in 1895. 

Dickinson from Haines" Mission established a branch store at Dyea 
in opposition to us a few years after. In the so"s there were a hundred 
or two hundred transient Americans passing thiough to :iiid from the 



284 PAPERS RELATING TO 

Yukon region, iind tho ))iisiiu>ss of our tiiin was in outfitting them with 
olotliing and ,sui)plie.s. About the year 18SS-S9 Captain William 
iSIoore ioeated the town of Skagway near the head of Dyea Inlet. His 
.son lienjaniin Moore eanie to settle there about the same time, and I 
understood that he took out iiis first papers as an Ameriean citizen in 
the United States Court at Juneau. He had to do this to enal)le him 
to hold such land as they might take up at Skagway. Captain William 
]Moore had also to become an American citizen to hold land. The 
father and son have contiiuied to reside at Skagway up to the present 
time. 

During my residence at Dyea .about the year 1888 some difhculty 
arose ])etween me and the Chilkat and Chilkoot Indians. These Indi- 
ans are two clans of the Thlinkit tribe and live on the headwaters of 
Lynn Canal and on the streams which empty into the inlets at its \wnd. 
When the traffic across the passes into the Yukon region began to 
increase I saw that the Indians who had up to that time done all the 
packing over the passes would not be able to supply the demand, and 
I conceived the idea of putting a lot of mules on there. Some of the 
Indians went to Sitka and brought the Governor there to interfere and 
stop me. That was Governor Swineford. The Indians said I was 
using their old trail and the}" wanted to stop me. The Governor and 
some of hisstafi' went over the trail and viewed it, and told the Indians 
that I was within my rights; that I was not interfering with their 
trail; that I was only improving their trail, and h;ul a perfect right to 
use it. This trail follows the Dyea River to the Sheep Camp, at the 
foot of the ^Mountains. It used to be known on the map, in the earh'' 
days as the Perier l*ass. The trail went over the mountains, on to the 
summit of this pass, and then dropped off into the headwaters of the 
Yukon — into Crater Lake. The Indians IxMng native Americans under 
the Russian Treaty, considered that the country l)elonged to them, 
and that they had an exclusive use of the pass and to the business of 
l)acking over the trail, as they and their fathers exercised this right. 

In 18ST Mr. William Ogilvie, on his way into the Yukon countr}' 
arrived at Dj'ea, while 1 was there, wnth two or three Peterburg canoes. 
He took them all the wav from Peterl)urg, Canada. He was a land 
surve3'or of the Dominion of Canada. He remained about ten days 
waiting for instruments which, he claimed, were to arrive from France. 
He passed up the Dyea River and into Canada, I don't know how far. 
He went down the Yukon sevei'al hundred miles. 

He had expected to em|)loy the American Chilkoot Indians to pack 
for him over the summit to the head of tlie lakes at th(> headwaters of 
the Yukon, liut on account of the fact that these Indians, several 
3'ears before, had some trouI)le with the Hudson Hay Company's rep- 
resentatives at Pyramid Harbor, at which a number of them were 
killed by the British, these Indians, by way of retaliation, demanded 
twenty dollars a hundred for packing, instead of nine dollars, which 
had been the customary price, and which was the price that Ogilvie 
had come prepared to pay out of govermnent funds. In this predica- 
ment, he sent word to Capt. Newell, of the United States man-of-war, 
''Pinta," then l3ing at Haines' ]Mission. Capt. Newell came in his 
launch, and met Ogilvie in my store in Dyea. ^^'e talked fh(^ situa- 
tion over. Capt. Newell refused to use his authority to compel or 
induce the natives to take the work for Ogilvie at nine dollars per 
hundred. Ogilvie said he could get some "Stick" Indians (The 



OCCri'ATlON OiN LYNN CANAL. 235 

"Takish" iiidiaiis), who were there at Dyea then, trading at my store, 
to do th(^ packini*- for hlni if they could he j^rotected from the assaults 
of the AmtM'ican C'hilcoot indians. Capt. Newell refused to extend 
anv such iirotection. sayino- that the ''Stick'' indians Avcre aliens, and 
had no rioht there. \Viiereui)on, I otiered to do th(» })ackin<>- for Oi^ilvie 
at nine dollars per lunulred. lie asked how I could do this. I replied 
that 1 would employ the " Stick'' indians. Og'ilvie said this coidd not 
be done without trouble between the American indians and the Cana- 
dian indians. Thereupon, I sug-o-ested he could employ the American 
indians to the summit, where the American territory was supposed to 
end, for ten dollars ])er hundred. That was to the sunmiit. about 
twenty mih\s from Dyea, and two-thirds of the wiiole portage; and 
then employ "Stick" indians to take the goods at the summit and 
pack them the rest of the way. This arrangement was made, and car- 
ried out. Owing to the fact that he was short of mone}-. I doubt 
ver}' uuich whether he paid the Canadian indians anything for their 
services beyond furnishing them with food; and in fact I think his 
own men did most of the work beyond the summit. 

In the fall, after the sunmier when Ogilvie passed through, Dr. 
Dawson, who had gone into the interior by the way of the Stikeen Kiver, 
and had passed from there down the llootlinka River to the Yukon 
and then by the Yukon, and out by the way of Dyea, came over Chil- 
koot sunuuit and down to Dyea, where he staid four or live days. He 
told me he was looking at the country geologically. He was a geolo- 
gist. He was joined at Dyea by Mr. McConnell shortly after hi.s 
arrival. McConnell had come up the Yukon River and over the pa.ss. 

Ogilvie, Dawson and McConnell Avere the only Canadian oflicials I 
saw in that region during the time 1 lived there. I had considerable 
talk with them during their visit. They made no protest against the 
occupation at the head of Lynn Canal by Americans, and made no 
claim to the region as belonging to Canada. 

Considerable sur\'eying was done at the head of Lvnn Canal, near 
Chilkoot in 18.^9, 1890 and 1891 l)y George W. GaVside, a United 
States Land Surveyor. He surveyed fishing sites for settlers. I had 
him surve}' a tishing site for me; and 1 had him survey a store site 
for a store that 1 built there. And he surveyed for canning compa- 
nies there. The}^ were all American companies. There was nothing- 
else doing business there. 

Previous to my leaving the Chilkat and Chilkoot country, which 
was in isiil, I was appointed and acted as a De})uty United States 
^Nliirshal and Deputy Collector of Customs. jVly jurisdiction extended 
over all the stri[) of country at the head of Lynn Canal, including Chil- 
kat inlet, Chilkoot inlet, and Dyea inlet. As Deputy Marshal I was 
not contined to one district, but could go into any district where ni}' 
duties took me. As Deputy Collector I used to have ''a little hell of 
my own,'' destroying stills and whisk v made by Indians and brought 
in by snuigglers. I seldom had occasion to go far inland, but United 
States othcers went as far up Chilkat inlet and river as twenty miles 
after criminals. 

Al)out the year 1891, Max Edehnan, a Deputy United States Mar- 
shid. with my hel]), arrested George Shatrich, an Indian, at Pyramid 
Hai'bor. upon a charge of resisting otKcers. About 1889, on a pre- 
vious occasion, a great many indians threatened to take my store at 
Dyea, and during the troul)le two of the indians were killed. I sent 



236 PAPERS RELATING TO OCCUPATION OF LYNN CANAL. 

a man in a boat down to Juneau for help, and about twent\' five white 
citizen.s of Juneau, led by a United States Deputy Marshal, came to 
our relief, and the trou])ie was settled with the natives. About the 
year ISsT. the American i'idians al)out Dyea intended to kill a slave 
girl, the property of old man Shatrieh, a Chilcat chief, who had died 
a day or so i)revi()usly. l»ecause her master had died. I went down to 
where the "Pinta" lay, at Haine's Mission, about twenty miles down 
the canal, and reported this matter to Capt. Nichols. He sent a launch 
with an ofhcer up to Dyea to get the girl away, l)ut she could not be 
found, and in fact never was found. 

John J. Healy. 

Subscribed and sworn to l)efore me this :^(>th day of May, A. D. 1903. 
[seal.] M. E. Patterson, 

Notanj PnhUc Cook Co., IlL 



GEOGRAPHICAL AND TOPOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION 
RELATIVE TO SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA. 



PORTLAND AND PEARSE CANALS. 

Super hdendent of Coaxt Sxrrey to the Sccreta/'t/ of State. 

Treasury Department, 
Office of the Coast and Geodetic Survey, 

AVa.^lihHiton, May 19. 190-3. 
The Honorable, The Secretary of State, Was/ihu/fo)). 

Sir: I have the honor to forward herewith for your information 
two papers rehiting to Portland Canal. The one dated May loth is b3' 
Mr. Herbert C. Grave.s, who holds the position of Nautical Expert in 
this Survey; the other, dated May 18, is by Mr. S. P. Shidy, Chief of 
the tidal Division, also in this Survey. 
Very respectfully. 

O. H. TiTTMANN, Superintendent. 



R>port of Herbert 0. Graves. 

Treasury Depart^ient, 
Office of the Coast and Geodetic Surrey. 

Washnujtrot, I), a. May 15, 1903. 

]SIr. Herbert G. Og])EN, 

Inspector of Hydrography c6 Topograpliy., 

U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey., Washington., D. C. 

Sir: — In compliance with your instructions to state tlie relative ad- 
vantuiivs from a mariners point of view of enterino- Portland Canal 
through the main channel between Pearse Island and Point Kanisden 
on the one hand, and through the passa^-es to the westward on the 
other, 1 submit the follow int;-: 

Portland Inlet is a broad open channel, free from danoers, with 
plenty of room for any vessel to work, and with moderate tidal cur- 
rents which run oenerally true with the channel. These conditions 
especially favor sailinu- vessels. There are no abrupt changes of 
course, and the pr()l)al)ility of holding winds that would be moder- 
ately true would l)c grcat»>r in the wider Portland Inlet than in the 
narrowiu- channels to the westward. These conditions would lead any 
man in a sailing vessel to select Portland Inlet if bound up Portland 
Canal: with ordinai-y precautions this channel can be navigated in the 

night. 

237 

26626— AP 16 



238 GEOGRAPHICAL AND TOPOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION 

The channels westward of Pearse and N\ ah's ishmds are very nar- 
row in places, have many known daniiers in places and a proljahility 
of others not known, have several ai)rupt chaiiues in direction, and 
have strong- tidal currents (veloeitv 8 to 4 nautical miles an hour) 
which do not run true with the channel and form l)ad swirls over the 
numerous danu(>rs and at the junction of the various channels. In 
those narrow channels the winds ai-(> confined and increased in force, 
l)eing felt in heavy gusts or williwaws. Tht^se conditions render the 
channels westward of Pearse and ^\'ales islands undesirable for all 
vessels, especially for sailing vessels. The deep water in these pass- 
ages malvcs close to the dangers, rendering it unlikely that an anchor- 
ag-e could be made in case of necessity, and if a vessel should become 
unmanageal)le through baffling winds she would almost certainh' go 
on the rocks or ashore owing to lack of room to maneuver. Some of 
these passages re{|uire good conditions of daylight and clear weather 
even for those with good local knowledge to use them, and their navi- 
gation at night or in thick weather is out of the question. 

Steamers, while not influenced by the same reasons as sailing vessels, 
would avoid the contracted and in places dangerous passages with 
strong tidal currt'nts and swirls, for the broad clear passage where 
they could run during either day or night and at full speed throughout. 

The matter of distance by the two routes is ditlerent for the several 
approaches. In approaching from southward in Chatham Sound the 
shortest route up Portland Canal is through Portland Inlet. In 
approaching from westward in Dixon Entrance the distance is a))out 
the same by going up Portland Inlet, or by going through Tongass 
Passage and Pearse Canal. For a steamer coming from the vicinity 
of Cape Fox the distance would be somewhat longer by the way of 
Portland Inli^t. but from my knowledge of the conditions I would say 
that no master would be justified in attempting the other route. Small 
local steamers, like those used by the canneries, might tind it to their 
advantag'e in bad weather to enter northward and eastward of Tongass 
Island, or throug'h Tongass Passage, between Sitklan and Wales 
islands, and go through Pearse Canal, ])ut these vessels go sinywhere, 
and take risks that other or larger vessels would not be justified in 
doing. 

In corr<)tK)ration of my opinion of these passages I su])mit the fol- 
lowing extracts from the report of Lieut. Comdr. (now Captain) 
Charles M. Thomas, U. S. Navy, who surveyed them in 1888. These 
opinions were endorsed by the late Captain H. E. Nichols. U. S. Nav}', 
who used almost the same language in the Alaska Coast Pilot (edition 
1891), pages 78 and 80-81. 

[Extracts from rt'iiurt diitod Mnrdi SI, ]sS9. of Lieut. Comdr. Charles M. Thomsi*;, V. S. Navy, eom- 
manrtitiK V. S. Cua^t iV- {icoilt-tir Survey steamer Patterson, engaged in the survey of Porthmd Canal 
and vicinity. Southeast .Vlaska, during is.ss.] 

Portland Inlet and Portland Cajial are free from all hidden dangers and the navi- 
gation of these waters is i)erfectly simple if a vessel keeps an ordinary distance from 
the shore line. The nnnierous outlying islets and detached rocks are close inshore 
and well indicated n])on the chart. 

Pearse Channel from its junction with Portland Canal to Wales Passage is clear to 
navigation, l)ut south of this i)oint t) the end of the channel near its junction with 
Tongass Pass it is foul ground and tlie most ordinary prudence would forbid its 
attempted navigation. Ail that portion of Pearse Channel abreast Fillmore Island 
is filled with numerous islets, some of them thickly wooded, some with nothing but 
a light growth of brush and standing low out of water, wliile others are entirely 



RKLATIVE TO SorTHEASTKKN ALASKA. 239 

barren, and tlit'iv are a irivat niinilier uf mcks at varying' distances frdni the main 
i^liore line on eaeh side, a few of them l)ein^' near the middle ef the channel. These 
rocks vary in lieiixht from those that are awash or sli<rhtly covered at low water, to 
those that are in the same condition at hi).di water. 

(ireat care was taken to locate with the sextant as many as possible of these rocks, 
and on one oi'casion at low water, neap (spring?) tides, all the Assistants in the three 
steam launches were detailed to take angles from every rock in sight, and it is 
believed that none escaped being located. 

Pilot E. H. Ffaiicis. who had ovor thirty years experience in the 
iiavioation of the water.s of Soiithoa.st Ahiska. and who was generally 
reoarded as the best informed man livino- on the waters of Alaska 
diirino- the last fifteen years of his life, held tli(> same opinion of Port- 
land Iidet and the passag-i's westward of Pearse and Wales islands as 
expressed i)y Lieut. C'omdr. Thomas, for whom h(^ served as pilot 
while engaged in the surveys. I was assoeiated with Pilot Franei.s in 
1JM)() and iitol engaged in the compilation of the 1901 edition of the 
Alaska Coast Pilot, and had good opportunities for learning his opinion 
on the subject. 

Yours respectfully. Herbeut C. Graves, 

Nautical E.rpcrt., C. cfc G. Survey. 

Respect full}' forwarded 

Herbert G. 0(;dex, 
Iw<pect(n' Ilyil. ct Top. 



RepoH of L. P. SJtaly. 

Treasury Department, 
Office of the Coa.st and Geodetic Survey, 

Wa.shhi</to,i, D. C, May 18, 1903. 
Mr. Andrew Braid. 

As-Htstant in charge of Office. 

Sir: In reply to the Superintendent's request of the loth instant, 1 
have to state that the tide which occurs in the upper portion of Port- 
land Canal, say north of latitude 55-^ 05', comes chieHy through Port- 
land Inlet. 

On account of the small cross section of Petirse Canal, at the nar- 
rows, ])etween Wales Passage and Winter Harbor, there is a ditfer- 
ence of about a quarter of ;in hour in the tinu' of tide at that place and 
at the northern end of Pearse Island. This causes sutticient (litt'erence 
in surface level of the water to make a tidal current of two or more 
knots in the narrows. A large part of the water which enters Pearse 
Canal, however, merelv tills and empties its iqiper portion, so that 
only a part of it passes into Portland Caiud. 

While the tidal currents in Portland lidet are weaker than those in 
Pearse Canal, the total V()limi(> of tidal water in the former is so nmch 
greater than in the latter, that at least !•<» per cent of the tides in Port- 
land Canal ebb and How through Portlatid Inlet. 
Respectfully yours. 

L. W SlUDY, 

Chief of Ti(h(l DiviMim. 



240 GEOGRArillCAL AND TOPOGRAPH ICAL INFORMATION 

Tht Axxt><tit id Adjiifdiit General f<> fin- S, ci'dnrn of State. 

War Detaktmext, 
Adjutant-General's Office, 

Wash it, (ft, 01. M<n/ '21, 190-3. 
The llonoj'at)lo Tlir Sk(m;etary of State, 

W<(shln(it-)h, IJ. C. 
Sir: I have the honoi- to enclose herewith a report made by Captain 
D. D. Gaillard, Corps of Eno-ineers, rehxtino- to the navi^iiition of 
Pearse Canal and the topography at the head of the Portland Canal. 
Very respectfidlv, 

W. V. Hall, 

AKsistirnt A(l]iit(iiit GeUemJ. 



Rejxrrt of Captoh, J). I). GaJlhii'd. U. S. A. 

Washington, D. C, Jf',/ 19. 190J. 
The Adjutant-General, U. S. Army. 

WiisJiiiKjton, D. (\ 
Sir: In aceordance with your instructions I have the honor to sub- 
mit the foijowino- description of Pearse Canal and of the head of Port- 
land Canal. S. E. Alaska, t)ased upon notes taken and information 
secured while cuoauc^d in official work at those localities in 181^6. 

PEARSE canal. 

On September 12, 189f>, while erecting storehouse #1, Wales Island, 
a sudden storm of orcat violence sprung up and it l)ecame necessary 
for the U. S. Light House steamer ''Manzanita,'' from which supplies 
were being obtained to seek refuge in Winter Harbor. Pearse Canal, 
which was reached by passing through Wal(\>^ Passage and through a 
short stretch of Pearse Canal, which at the narrowest point encountered 
was ])ut about a tiiird of a mile in width. 

15etweeu Winter Harl)or and the North end of Pearse Island, Pearse 
Canal is straight, has an average width of about a mile, with ample 
depth, and api)arently presents no special dithculties of navigation. 

In order to familiarize myself with all of the waters in this vicinity, 
I Avas very desirous of passing through that part of Pearse Canal 
bctwiHMi \Vales Passage and the waters of Dixon Entrance, liut xw^ 
])ilot.Ca])t. J.E.L(>nnan,aman thoroughly familiar with Alaskan waters, 
strongly advised against my att(MU]>ting to tak(^ the steamer through 
this part of Pearse Ca)ial, calling my attention to the large numl)er of 
ol)structions shown on the Chart "(U. S. C. & G. S. #8lOt>) and the 
crooked nature of the channels, which he stated caused strong tidal 
cross-currents, and would prevent steering by compass at night, or 
when caught in one of the fogs to which this locality is very su))iect. 

He further stated that, in his opinion in addition to the charted 
obstructions, there were doubtless some obstructions not yet discovered. 

As Capt. Leiuian had {iroved himself an ethcient i)ilot and a man of 
sound judgment in niattm-s pcM'taining to his calling, I did not feel 



rilOTUGKArillC \' 1 K\\>: 

aocoiui)auyiiig the Report of Cai^taiu I). D. (iaillard. 

(Seepage 2-11.) 




BEAR RIVER VALLEY 
from a pciiiil near the 5Gth i>jiranel. 




BEAR RIVER VALLEY 
from rcirtlaiid CanaL 



RELATIVK TO SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA. 241 

justiticcl in riskinu- the siifoty of the vessel, and reluctantly abandoned 
the idea of naxipitinu' this j)art of lVars(» Canal. 

As a eonse((ueiu-e of the menaces to naxi^-ation just dcscrilx'tl. P(>arsc 
Canal was at the time mentioned rai'ely used l)y steam vessels, and not 
at all hy sailini;' vessels. 

IIKAD OF rOKTI.AND CANAL AM) HEAK RIVEK VALLEY. 

Portland Canal terminates at its head in aflat foreshore of mud, the 
slope of which is so small that the distance between the hio-h and the 
low water lines is ahout half a mile. In prolongation of the same 
gorg-e in which Porthmd Canal is situated lies the valley of Bear 
River, a swift glacier-fed stream ap})arently draining a large stretch 
of country. 

A reconnoissance of nearly <! miles made t/V me up Bear River \'al- 
lev in Septend)er, \S\H\. showed that for a distance of about 12 or 14 
miles above the head of Portland Canal this valley is a straight pro- 
longation of the same mountain-bordered indentation in which lies 
Portland Canal. 

Bear River N'alley is generally low and Hat, covered in placi's by a dense 
growth of undergrowth and rather small trees, while in other places 
marshes and open gravel-covered areas are of frec[uent occurrence. 

Two ])hot()graphic views of Bear River \'allev were taken, looking 
toward the North and directly u\) the valley. — the first from a point a 
little South of the .5ti parallel of North Latitude and the second while 
the •• Manzanita'' was lying at anchor about live-eighths of a mile 
from the head of Portland Canal. 

I touched with the U. S. Light House steamer "'Manzanita'' at the 
Hudson's Bay Company's important trading post. Port Simpson, 
British Columbia, at the mouth of Portland Canal, twice while 
engaged in constructing the store houses on Portland Canal for the 
purpose' of making some minor purchases at the Hudson's Bay Com- 
pany's store. On each occasion the ■" Man/.anita" reiuained at the 
Company's wharf for some time enabling me to visit all parts of this 
interesting ])()st. 



Kesi)ectfully sul)mitted. 



1). I). Gaillakd. 

C'djjf. of /{/if/i/i/i /-s, [\ S. Afiiiij, 



Tilt ActiiKj St< rrtdrij of rji, y<irj/ to tlo Sn-nldr;/ of St<itr. 

Navy DErAUTMENT, 

^VaM/,;^HJto„, Mnj -2^2. 1903. 
Sik: I have the honor to enclose herewith, for the Hon. John W. 
Foster, a report of Capttun Charles M. Thomas, V . S. Navy. ui)on the 
navigability of the waters of Portland Inlet, Portland Canal, and 
Pearse Channel, Southeast Alaska. 

1 have the honor to be, sir. your ol»etlient servant, 

Cmas. H. Daulini;, 

Act i IK/ •Sc(/'ct(t/\//. 

The Honoral)le the Secuktakv ok State. 



242 GEOGRAPHICAL AND TOPOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION 

R(poii iif C<n>t(i'i II C/itirles Jf. TJi'iinos, U. 8.2^. 

U. S. K. S. Franklin, 

r .S. Navy Yard, NorfoU', T7^, May Wth, 1903. 
Sir: 1. In obedience to instructions contained in letter No. 2518-3- 
JKC^ under dute of May KJth, 19u3, from the Chief of Bureau of Xav- 
ioation, I left Norfolk. Viriiinia. on the evenino- of May 18th. 1903, 
and, upon arrival in ^^'asllin^'t()n, I). C. reported to the Chief of 
Bureau of Navigation for spcn-ial teun)orary duty, and was directed to 
prepare a re])ort from my observation as Chief of a Surveyino- Party 
in Poi'tland Jnlet. Portland Canal, and Pearse Channc^l. upon the nav- 
igal)ility of those waters. 

2. During the latter part of January, 1887, I was ordered l)y the 
Secretary of the Navy to report to the Secretary of the Treasury. l)y 
letter, for duty under the Superintendent of the U. S. Coast and Geo- 
detic iSurvey, and by the latter Avas assigned to the Command of the 
U. S. C. & G. S. Steamer Patterson for the continuation of the Sur- 
vey in Alaskan Waters, and was retained on said duty until April, 
1889, working two seasons in Alaska, 1887 and 1888. During tiie lat- 
ter year, and while (nigaged in the survey of Stephen's I'assage. I 
received instructions from the Superintendent, U. S. Coast and Geo- 
detic Survey about the latter part of May to cease work upon which 
then engaged, and to proceed to the vicinity of Portland Inlet for the 
survev of those waters, Portland Canal and Pearse Channel, and, in 
obedience to said instructions, commenced the latter survey July oth 
and concluded the same Septeml)er 19th, 1888. 

3. From an inspection of the U. S. C. & G. S. Charts covering the 
waters of Southeast Alaska as above described, it will l)e seen that the 
best approach to Portland Canal for vessel coming through Dixon 
extrance or from Chatham Sound is via Portland Inlet. 

•i. For entering Portland Canal, navigation is clear A'ia Wales l*as- 
sage and Pearse Channel (now called Pearse Canal), but. iu the latter 
water, violent swii'ls will be encountered opposite the narrow entrance 
to Hidden Inlet, and from my report of the season's work (1888). under 
date of March 31st, 1889, and addressed to the Su})erintendent of the 
U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, I find the following remarks con- 
cerning this matter: 

Hidden Inlet, a narrow arm of five miles in length, empties into Pearse Channel, 
on the western side, eijiht miles below its junction with Portland Canal. The small 
passage connecting the main Ixidy of the Inlet with the Pearse Channel is not 
over i;^0 meters in width and about one-third of a mile in length, and through this 
limited space must pass the large volume of water tilling the Inlet at each flood tide 
and flowing out again on the el>l>, causing a current at this point estimated to be 
from 10 to 12 knots an hour, forming immense swirls at tlie full strength of the tide, 
similar to those observed in Seymour Narrows, B. C. These swirls extend across 
Pearse Channel about one-third of its width opposite Hidden Inlet. 

5. The ai)proach to Portland Canal via Tongass Passage or Tongass 
Narrows, and Pearse Channel, is possil)le for steam vc'^sels of small 
size, but it is exceedingly dangerous on account of foul groimd. nar- 
row and contnu-ted i)assages. and violent swirls to be encoimtered at 
every change of the tide. Nopi'udent ntivigator would und(Mtake this 
method of reaching Portland Canal with the wide and unobstructed 
waters of Portland Iidet open to him. 

6. During my two seasons surveying work (1887-1888) in the waters 
of Southeast Alaska, it was necessary for the V . S. C. & G. S. Steamer 



RELATIV?: TO SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA. 243 

Patterson to stop at Port Sinipson. both g'oing tiiid rctuniinij;-. with 
ocrusioiKil visits duriiio- the season tor the i)urpose of reecixiny;' coul 
and supplies, so I had t'recjuent interviews with the Factor of the 
Hudson Bay C\)nii)any. at Port Simpson, a Canadian, who pi'actically 
g'overned in that rejiion of British ('ohunl»ia. and when alhidino- to the 
various ishmds and waters in the vicinity of his charg-e, he invariably 
referred to W'ah's and Pearse Islands as ''your side" of the dividing 
waters, and to Port Simpson. Sonierville Island. Observation lidet, 
etc., as "our side." There was no discussion at all as to the boundary 
line, it being- well understood by the Factor, the Indians, and all i)arties 
concerned, that the line ran through the middle of Portland Inlet up 
through the middle of Portland Canal. I also consulted the Factor of 
the Hudson Bay Company c)n the sut)iect of ei'ecting Signal Stations 
upon the Can-.idian side of the waters that I was directed to survey, 
and to which he assured me that there was not the slightest objection. 
Of course. I made no such request concerning the Stations to be erected 
upon the north side of the Inlet, as there was. at that tim(\ no ques- 
tion as to its l)eing United States territory. 

Respectfully, 

CiiAS. ]M. Thomas, 
Captain. ZL S. JVavy^ Commanding. 
The SE(n{p:TAKT of the >savy. 

(Bureau of Navigation.) 



MAPS AND CHARTS. " 

[Note. — To avoid confusion the nuni1)ering of the maps and charts in this Ust is 
continued from the Ust submitted in the Appendix to the Case of the United States, 
pages 5n-"iL*0.] 

88. (ISOi). Atlas du Voyage de ^'anc()uver. 

This is the French edition, published at Paris in the vear VIII of tlie rei)uhhoan 
calendar (1801). 

89. (182»)). Atlas of the South Sea or Pacific Ocean, by Contre- 

Admiral Krusenstern. pu1)lished by ordei' of His Imperial 
jNIajesty the Fmperor of Russia, at St. Petersburg, in 1826. 
according to the Russian title-page, and in 18:^7 according to the 
title-page in French. It is called Part II in the Russian title. 

The double-page map No. Ifi is entitled "Carte Cienerale de I'Ocean Pacifiijue, 
IIemis]ihrre lioreal, ISL'7." The liuundary of Russian America is represented about 
in the usual way. Kast of the meridional part of the boundary and parallel to it is 
the insfrii)tion: " Limites des i)ossessions Kusses et Anglaises d'aprCs la Traite de 
1825." The bi)undarv follows the usual continental course, around the head of each 
inlet, but is ratlier straighter than customary in the lower part of its course. 

90. (1882). ''British North America. By permission dedicated to the 

Honourable Hudson's Bay Company, containing the latest infor- 
mation which their documents furnish. By their obedient serv- 
ant, J. Arrowsmith, London. 1.5 Fel)"v, 1882." 

On this map the Russian boundary is represente<l in the usual manner from Mount 
St. Elias to tlie head of Portland Canal. The line is not continued down the chan- 
nel to the sea, but Pearse and Wales islands are distinctly shown as part of the 
Russian territory by the tinting. 

"The maps and charts listed will l)e produced before the Tribunal, or, if the origi- 
nals cannot be so produced, then duly authenticated photographic copies will l)e 
submitted. 



244 GEOGRAPHICAL AND TOPOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION 

91. (1845), "The Life and Travels of Thomas Simpson, the Arctic 
Discoverer. Hv his l)r()thor. Alexanch'r Simpson. London, 
1845." 

This volume contains a small "INIap of the Country north of Athabasca Lake, 
North America," on the scale of 160 miles to an inch. The bDumlary of the Russian 
possessions is indicated by a dotted line, extendinj; from the Arctic Ocean to Mount 
St. Elias and thence in the usual manner, as a line entirely on the continent and 
approximately )>arallel to the windings of the coast, to a jioint about 50 miles south 
of the Stikine River, where it runs off the map. This map is marked "London, 
Richard Bentley, 1S45." 

*J2. (1849). ''Atlas of the Northwest Coast of America from Borintj 
Strait to Cape Corrientes and the Ah^utian Ishmds. with tlie 
addition of certain places on the Northeast Coast of Asia. Com- 
piled bj Captain of the First Rank Tebenkof, 1852." 

The first map (preceding the numbered seiies and therefore perhaps an after- 
thought) is entitled "(.leneral Chart of the northern part of the Pacific Ocean, New 
Archangel, 1S49." It shows the boundary of Russian America from the latitude of 
67° to the heail of the Portland Canal. The line follows al)0ut the usual course, 
though in the southern ))art of the lixif'n' it is rather straight, an I in conse(iuence it 
cuts close to the head of Taku Inlet. Neither Portland Canal nor ( >l)servatory Inlet 
is given a name, anil tlie common approach to them, generally called Portland Inlet, 
is very carelessly drawn, the southern shore l)eing swung so far back to the south- 
eastward as to make a Inroad gulf in the i)lace of the comparatively narrow passage 
which actually exists. The Nass River is called the " Naak " and is made to flow into 
the Alice Arm of Observatory Inlet. Several distinct and scattered ranges of moun- 
tains are indicated in the interior. 

93. (18r)<»). ''Facts and Fio'iires relating to Vancouver Island and 

British Columbia," bv J. Despard Pemberton, Surveyor General 

V. I., London, 1860."^ 
This book contains a small map which shows only a very small i)art of Ru'^sian 
America. The boundary starts at the head of Portland Canal and sweeps to the 
northwest, as far as the edge of the map, about 131° west longitude. 

94. (18()o). Russian Admiralty Chart. Plan of the river Stachine, 

from a survey in 18t);^> from the corvette Rynda ))y Sub-Lieu- 
tenant Butyrkine. 

This map is on (juite a large scale, aliout 2,376 feet to an inch, and shows the shore 
line, together with the islands and sand bars in the river and a line of soundings 
from the mouth to a jioint about 11 nautical miles above the so-called " Big Bend." 
No features of the topograjiliy along the river are indicated on this map, which in 
this respect is decidedly inferior to the small sketch map of Professor Blake, who 
accompanied the party that made this survey. 

95. (1865). ""Vancouver's Island and British Coliuul)ia" by Matthew 

Mactie, F. R. (1. S., Five years resident in Victoria, Vancou- 
ver's Island. London, 1865. pp. 574. 

This work, which is dedicated to the secretary of state for the colonies, contains a 
iiiaji upon which the boundary of Russian America is draAvn frou) the head of the 
Portland Canal, following the usual course, to a point north of the Stikine River, 
where the map terminates. 

96. (1865). "The North-west Passage l)y Land." By Lord Milton 

and Dr. Cheadlc, London, 1865. 
At the end of this volume is a map entitled "(Tcneral Map of British North Amer- 
ica, showing the route of Lord Milton it Dr. Cheadle in 1S62-.3." The border of the 
Russian territory is colored blue, and the boundary is drawn with substantial accu- 
racy. The name "Portland Canal" ap])earsin Dixon Entrance, but evidently intended 
to be applied to the whole of Portland Inlet and Canal, as the name terminates at 
a point close to the mouth of Portland Inlet. 



RELATIVE TO SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA. 245 

97. (1S6T). V . S. Coast Survey map of Alaska. I'ultlislicd in con- 

nection with the speech of Hon. Charles Sinuner. (h'livered in 
the Senate of the T. S. in support of the treaty of cession of 
Ahiska. Printed at the Conj»'res.sional GIol)e Ofiice, IfcltJT. 

Map reproduced atJ Xo. 24, in Atlas accompanying the Case of the United States. 

98. (1S(3S). Russian A(hniralty Chart No. 134.5. '" Chart of the Icy 

Sea and the Eastei-n Ocean, couipih'd from the hitest surveys at 
the Hydroti'raphic Dt^partnuMit of the Marine Ministry. 1844, 
Corrections to Istis." 

This niaji shows the western boundary of 18H7, accordiii!.'' to the treaty of cession 
to the United States, and also retains the lioundary separating the territory from the 
British possessions in the usual position. This line is marked " fV)rmei' boundary 
between Russia and Kiiiiland." The wonl "former" is not yet applied to the desig- 
nation of the territory itself, whieh is marked " Kussian Dominions." 

99. (18t)8). ""Travel and Adventure in the Territorv of Ahiska," etc., 

by Frederick Whymper. London, 1868. 

This book eontain- a map of Alaska wl;ich shows the lioundary as following the 
course claimed l;»y the United States. 

100. (1S6S). Journal of the Koyal (leooraphical Society of London, 

18H8, vol. 38. 

This volume contains, at page lUi, a niaii entitled "Maj) of British Columbia 
reduced from the. original map by Mr. Alfred Wadilington." On this uiap the 
Alaskan boundary is drawn in the usual way from the head of Portland Canal. 
From that ])oint it runs to the northwestward for about 80 miles, without crossing or 
even closely approaching any inlet, to the edge of the map. Tlie name Portland 
Canal, in fair-sized Roman letters, parallels the whole length of the canal, l)ut does 
not extend below its junition with IVarse Canal. The name ()l)servatory Inlet 
appears in very small italics east of the head of the main arm and extenils in an 
easterly direction. The words "'United States Terr'y" extend nearly north and 
south in the portion of the //.s/m' shown on the map, west of Portland Canal and the 
boundary line. 

101. (1868). The Handy Koyal Athis. A. Keith Johnston. Edinhuroh 

and London, 1S68. 

Map 3S, North America, shows "Ru.<sian America," in spite of the cession to the 
United States in tlie preceding year. The boundary line is correctly drawn. 

102. (1S69-1903). The British Colonial Office List for years isci* to 

1903. "'Ccjuipiled from Official Records etc., etc. with permis- 
sion of the Secretary of State for the Colonies" by A. A. Birch 
and W. Robinson "of the Colonial Office." 

It contains, facing the title page, 'A general map of the British Dominions," 
showing the Alaska //.s/7jv substantially as claimed by the United States. Similar 
maps appeared in the annual issues of the "'Colonial Ottice List" up to 1895. 

In the issue for 1895 another maji was substitute<l entitled '"Tlie World on ]Mer- 
cator's Projection," with the inscription " Reprinted from Parliamentary Paper (C. 
75.53), by permission of the Controller of H. M. Stationery Ottice." This map has 
the listirri' indicated, as in the previous map, substantially in acconlance with the 
claim of the United States. The same map was reproduced in the annual issues up 
t(j and including U)02. In the issue of 1901 there ai>pearecl at the foot of the title 
page the following: "This List, though com])iled from otticial records, is not an otii- 
cial publication," which also was contained in the later issues. 

In the "Colonial Ottice List" for 1908 the map disai>pears, and the preface says: 
"A number of new Maps have been added (for which the Editors desire to express 
thanks to the Colonial (Jovernments concerned, ami to the British South .\frican 
Company), and some of the older maps have been discarded as out of date. They 
hope to replace the'-e with new maps in the future." 



24<) (iEOGRAPHICAL AND TOPOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION 

103. (ISl)'.)). Map of Alaska. Plate No. lit. at vud of Petermann's 

Mitthoiluiiiit'ii for lst)'.». acconipaiiyinj:" an article by W. H. 
Dall. entitled '* Die TeleiiraplK'n-lvxiu'ditioii auf deiii flukou in 
Alaska." 

This map is similar to the one i)r('pare(l in ISti? at the ('oast Survey Ottice for the 
Department of State, except that it is niucli smaller. The title is ''Xordwest- 
Amerika niit dem von Kussland an ilie Verein. Staaten cedirten Territorium Alaska. 
Mit Benutzunjj der neuesten Amerikanischen Anfnahmen, besonders der unter W. II. 
Dall im Coast Survey Office Bearheiteten Karte. Von A. Petermann. ^laassstal) 
1: 9,000,000." Alaska is tinted red and the border is outlined by a narrow baml of 
deei)er tint, which is carried out through Dixon Entrance. 

104. (1871). "Map of British Columl)ia to the ."^.tith Parallel. North 

Latitude. Compiled and drawn at the Lands ami \\'()rks Ottice, 
Victoria, B. C. under the direction of the Honourable J. W. 
Trutch, M. Inst. C. E. ,F. R. G. S., Chief Connnissioner of 
Lands and Works and Surveyor General. 1S71. J. B. Laun- 
ders, Draughtsman. Lands and ^^'orks Office, Victoria, B. C, 
May !»tli, ISTO. Additions to January, 1871. Scale 1:1 ,584,00(') 
or 25 Eno-lish statute miles to 1 inch." 

The boundary of Alaska is shown l)y a waving, Ijroken line from the north eilgeof 
the map, in the latitude of about 56° 30', to the head of Portland Canal, which is here 
called Portland Channel. The line curves to follow the bends of the coast at a 
distance of approximately 30 statute miles from the heads of the {)rincipal indenta- 
tions of this jiart of the coast. From the head of Portland Canal the line is continued 
southward through the middle of the passage, but west of Hattie Island, to the 
northeastern jjoint of Pearse Island. So far as indirated the line of demarcation 
here terminates, but Portland Inlet is properly named and the islands and theneigh- 
l)oring shores are drawn with a good degree of accurai-y, showing the passage north- 
west of Pearse and Wales islands as narrow and obstructed by islets. 

10.5. (1874). Map in ''Canada on the Pacific, etc." l)v Charles 
Horetzky, Montreal, 1874. 
This map shows the boundary in Portland Canal and for a short distance to the 
northward, on the continent. 

106. (1874-1880). "Province of Manitoba and North- West Terri- 

tory," Ottawa, 1878. 

This volume contains a small, but fairly good map of the Dominion of Canada, on 
which the Alaskan Ixiundary is drawn with substantial accuracy from the head of 
Portland Canal to a point north of Mount Fairweather. 

In the second edition of the volume this maj) is given in colors and with the date 
1880. In the first edition the map is dated b'-i74. 

In the volume called "Letters by James Trow, ^I. P., Department of Agriculture, 
Ottawa, 1878," the uncolored map of 1874 also ai)pears. 

107. (1875). Chart of the World on Mercator's Projection, con- 

structed l)y Hermann Berohaus. Gotha. flustus Perthes. 

Eiohth edition, 1875. (First edition. 1803.) 
The boundary of the British possessions on the Northwest Coast is shown as on 
the first edition, which was reproduced in the Atlas accom{)anying the Case of the 
United States (Map No. 21). The name Alaska ajipcars in jilace of the former Rus- 
sian America, and this is the only noticeable change. 

108. (1875). The new standard atlas of the Dominion of Canada. 
pp.,lvi. 151. 47 mai)s, fol. Montical and Toronto, Walker and 
Miles, 1875. 

Tlie maps in this atlas show the boundary with substantial accuracy. 

109. (1875). "Daysprinu- in th(> Far West." Sketches of Mission- 

Work in North- west Amei-ica by AL E. J. With twenty-four 
eno-ravinos and a map. London, 1875. 



RELATIVE TO SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA. 247 

The map fariii'r tin- titk'-pajie, prepaie<l l)y Stantnril'.^ (it'ojriaphiral Kt^tabt., 6 & 
7 Charing Cross, sliows the Alaskan iMHUKhiry with sultstantial accuracy. 

110. (1877). lioyiil Atlas of Modern Geoo-mphy, A. Keith flolmstoii, 

1877. 
Map 41, North America, has the lioundary of Alaska correctly drawn. 

111. (1877). Mup of the eoiintrv to lie traversed b}" tlie Canadian 

Pacitic Railway, to ac('oni]>any proores^ rejwi't on the explora- 
tory surNey^, 1877, Sandford Fieniino-, Enoineer-in-Chief. 

This map, marked "Sheet No. 1," was drawn by J. Johnston, C. D., Dominion 
Lands Ottice. It shows the southern portion of Alaska and represents the boundary 
as i)assinu; through Hixon Kntranoe and up the Portland Canal, beyond which estu- 
ary this map does not extend. 

11^. (1878). "Map of part of North America, desioiied to ilki.strate 
the offieial reports and the discuss-ions relatinoto the boiuidaries 
of the Province of Ontario, and shewino- the bonndaries as set- 
thnl l)v tlie Arl)itrators, viz: The Riuht Hon. Sir Edward Thorn- 
ton, the Hon. Sir Francis Hincks and the Hon. Chief -lustice 
Harrison, on the Srd Auonst, ls7s. Compiled under the direc- 
tion of the Governmentof Ontario by Thomas Devine, F. K. G. S., 
etc., Deputy Survej'or General, Ontario, 1878." Scale 80 miles 
to an inch. 

This map includes the whole of the Alaskan l)oundary, which is drawn in about 
the usual way to the head of Portland Canal. 

113. (1880). Phvsical Atlas, etc., of the Dominion of Canada. By 

J. Beaufort Hurlbert, M. A., LL. D. Entered, etc., 1880. 
Map No. 1 is entitled " (Polar Projection) General Map 
shewing- the Provinces and Territories of the Dominion of 
Canada. Published by authority of the Rt. Hon''''' The Minis- 
ter of the Interior." 

The political subdivisions are indicated by different colors. The Ijoundary of 
Alaska agrees almost exactly with tliat claimed by the United States. 
All of the other maps in the atlas are similar. 

114. (1880). " Dominion of Canada, comprising the provincesof Prince 

PMward Island. Nova Scotia, New Brunswick. Quebec, Mani- 
toba. British Colmnbia, North-West Territories. Ottawa. De- 
partment of Agriculture. 1880.'' 

This volume contains a small, but fairly good map of Canada and juirt of the United 
States, "comiiiled from the latest authorities', 1880," printed by the Burland Lith. 
Co., Montreal. 

The .\laskan boundary starts from the head of Portland Canal and runs around 
the heads of all the inlets to a point north of Mount Fairweather, where it runs off 
the edge of the maj). 

115. (1884). '• Malby's Teri'cstrial Gi()b(>. comjiiled from the latest and 

most authentic sources, includino- all the recent oeooraiihical 
discoveries. Manufactured and i)ul)lished under the superin- 
tendence of the Society for the Ditiusion of Csefid Knowledge 
l)y Thomas Malb\ tSc Son. Ma]) and (ilobe sellers to the Admi- 
laltv. 37 Parkei Street, Little Queen Street, Holborn. London, 
January 1st, 1884." 
The lioundary of Ala.«ka is drawn in the usual way from the Arctic Ocean to the 
head of I'ortland Caual. which name appears on the glolte. IVarse and Wales 
islands are indicatol by the tint as belonging to Alaska. A delinite mountain range 
is represented as running all the way from Puget Souml and New Westminster to 
the head of Lynn Canal. The British territory is bordered by a red line, which 
runs widelv clear of Lvnn Canal. 



248 (4E()(iRAl»HirAL AND T()P()(4RAPHIC AL INFORMATION 

116. (ISSS). Coloiiiiil ("Imrcli Histories. Diocese of Miickciizic River 

t)y Riu'ht Kt'\(M('ii(l W'illiuni Ctirpenter Honipus, I). I).. Hisliop 

of the Diocese, wit!) iiia}). l.,(jii(lon. 1SS8. 

The small map faciiiir the title-] lairt' shows the Alaskan hnuiidarv with sultstaiitial 
accuraey. 

117. (188tt)- Caiiadu. A uioinoi'ial volume published luuler the direc- 

tion of the (iovernnient Departnieiits. hy E. B. Biiigar, Mon- 
treal. London, 1889. 

This vohiine contains a map of Canada, on which the Alaskan Ixjundary is almut 
tlie same as that drawn l)y the U. 8. Coast Survey. 

lis. (ISSU). Canada. Ontario. Sessional Papers, vol. XXI. part VI, 
3d Session of Sixth Leeislatiire (^f the Province of Ontario, 

S.\ss:on of 188!», Toronto, l^S'.h 

This paper c'lntains a map of part of North America, upon which the southern 
])orti'>n of tile Alaskan boundary is shown as a continental line, from the head of the 
i'ortlan 1 Canal well an toward the Takn Inlet, which is off tiie map. 

111». (18!H)). Prol)lenis of Oreater Britain. By the Kioht Honourable 
Sir Charles Wentworth Dilke, IJart. Lonch^n and New York, 

ISiio. 

This work contains a map of British Nortii Americ-a (prei)ared Ity Stanford's 
geojiraphical establishment) which rejiresents tiie boundary of Southeastern Alaska 
with sul)stantia] accuracy. 

1-20. (18!)0). Lil)rary Keference Atlas of the World, hy John Inirthol- 
omew, London, 181H). 

Map 58, North America, is a small-scale map, on which the Alaskan boundary is 
correctly drawn. 

Map 59, Dominion of Canada, is on a lar^rer scale. On this map the northern part 
of the boundary is correctly drawn until the vicinity of Burroughs Bay is reached, 
when the line is detiected to that estuary and thence runs down Behm Canal and 
Clarence Strait. 

1^1. (ISH)). Philips' inii)erial Atlas of the World, London, 181»0. 

Map 56, North America, shows the Alaskan boundary correctly as far'south as the 
head of Portland Canal, l)ut does not repre.sent it in tiie water passages. Pearseand 
Wales islands are not given. 

Map ()1, British Columbia, etc., l)y William Shawe, F. K. H. S., on the scale of 48 
miles to the inch, shows the boumlary very well from a point a little north of Ber- 
ners Bay to the head of Portlaml Canal. At the point of beginning, i. e., at the 
north edge of the niap, the line is drawn (|uite close t(j Lynn Canal, apjiarently upon 
the summits of the mountains rising directly from the sea, and then swings eastward 
well up tile valley of the Taku, then gradually back again toward the coast, cross- 
ing the Stikine below the confluence of the Iskoot, then running to the .southeast- 
ward a little east of a nearly straight mountain range, marked "Lincoln Mts.,'' to 
the head of Portland Canal, below which point the line is not continued. The tint- 
ing of the shore line, however, shows that l)oth Pearse and Wales islands are con- 
sidered part of Alaska, an<l the main passage south of them is marked ''Portland 
Inlet." 

122. (18!)(>). Complete Atlas of the World, hv (Jeoroe W. Bacon, 

F. K. G. S., London, 1890. 

I\Iai)s of Nortli America and of the Dominion of Canada show the Alaskan bound- 
ary substantially as claiuied by the United States. On the map of the Dominion, 
which is on a larger scale than the general mai). Mount St. Klias is at the angle of 
the boundary. 

123. (1891). Bacon s. Complete Atlas, London, 1891. 

Map of the Dominion of Canada shows the Alaskan boundary with sul)stantial 
accuracy. 



KELATIVE TO SOUTHKASTEKN ALASKA. 249 

12-4-. (IS'.M). (leot^rapliv of the Dominion of ( aiiada and Ncwfounfl- 
land. by Kov. Wi'Uiaiu Parr GivswcU, Oxford. lsi>l. 

A *rt'iieral inap of Canada, facing i>ajre 1, is small and poorly draw n. The Alaskan 
boundary remains upon the eontinent until it reaches Burrouirhs P.ay. 

The ])hysical map of Canada, farinjr pajje 17, shows the l)oundary correctly. 

The map of British Columhia, facin<r pa^re 81, is on a larjrer scale. It shows the 
lower part of the boundary, from just south of the Stikine Kiver to Portland Canal 
with substantial accuracy. IVarse and Wales islamls are claimed as British territory. 

125. (1SII4). The Hoval Atlas of Modern Geouraphy. etc.. by the late 

Alexander Keith Johnston, cte.. with corrections and additions 
to the present date bv T. B. Johnston, Geoorai)her to the Queen, 
F. R. G. 8., F. R. S. E., F. S. A. 8., etc! W. cS- A. K. John- 
ston, Kdinl)uroh and London, 1S94. 

Map 45, North America, sliows the boundary substantially as claimed by the 
I'nited States, thouiih nearer the coast than it is usually drawn, as far south as the 
Stikine Kiver. The line is then detk'cted to Burroughs ]>ay and thence down Clar- 
ence Strait. There is also another line (merely a streak of >rreen) from the ])oint 
where the Stikine is crossed to the head of Portland L'anal and down the west side of 
same to its mouth. This may be intended to rejiresent the claim of the I'nited 
States, for comparison, but if so, there is nothinjr to so indicate. 

Map 46, Dominion of Canada (Western Sheet), shows the boundary from near 
INIouut Fairweather to the Portland Canal substantially as claimed by the United 
States. The line nowhere cuts the I'oast line, and the line of color borderinir the 
British possessions runs down the left (east) l)ank of Portland Canal and Inlet, 
leaviu": l)oth Pearse and Wales islands to the United States. This majtis on a much 
larger scale than the general map. 

126. (ISIX)). '^Throuo-h the 8ul)-Arctic Forest." W. Pike. London 

and New York. 189(5. 

This book contains a map of Alaska and Bi'itish Columbia, upon wliicli the 
boundary line is correctly drawn. It is also carried down through Portland Inlet 
and out by Cape ^Inzon. 

127. British Admiralty Charts, especially Nos. 787, 2168. 2172, 2288. 

2430, 2431, 2458. 2461, 2462, 2558*, 2683. 

128. (1870-1S5>7). Chambei-s Encyclopedia, Edinburgh. 187(». 

"America, Russian — now Alaska, a territory of the United States — was purchased 
from the Kussian Government in 1867 for s7, 200,000. It is boun<Ied, on the side of 
British America, above, between the two liordering oceans, liy the meridian of 
141° W., and below, <lown to the parallel of 54° 40' X., l)y a conventional line to l)e 
drawn at a distance of 'AO miles from the continental coast." Accompanying the 
article from which the al)ove e.xtract is taken is a mapof North America, upon which 
the boundary is correctly drawn. 

The same statement api)ears in the edition of 1873. 

The subscription edition of ISHl has an article on .Vlaska, from which the following 
is extracted: "Southeastern .Maska consists of a narrow strij) of continental land, 
together with the .\lexaniler Archipelago, lying near the maiidand. This region is 
extremely mountainous and has many great glaciers nearly reaching the sea." The 
boundary is correctly given on the maj) of the territory, by J. Bartholomew, F. R. 
(t. S., drawn on the scale of 140 miles to the inch. 

The edition of 1897 repeats the descri])tion given in that of 1891 and contains maps 
both of North America ami of .Maska, on each of which the boundary is correctly 
shown. 

12i>. Encyclopedia Brittmnica. 

The eighth edition gives a map of North .America upon which the boimdary of 
Russian .America is correctly drawn. The name of Portland Canal is not given, but 
the Ixiundary starts from the head of the canal. 

The ninth e<lition appeared under several different im])rinfs. That i.<sueil by 
Little, Brown it Co., of Boston, in lS7(i, after the Kdinbnrgh edition, contains at the 
end of Volume II a map of Cana<la, on heavy i)a])er. upon whiih the .Maskan 
boundary is correctly drawn. The line not only runs to the head of Portland Canal, 
but is carried down the mirldU' of the passage and out to sea. The name of Portland 
Canal api)ears. 



250 (4E0GRAPHICAL AND TOPOCiKAPHICAL INFORMATION 

In the original Edinlmrirh eilititm, Voluiiic IV. there is given a (li)uhle-i)age map 
of Canada (PI. XXXV), drawn l)y J. Bartholomew, Pvdinhnrgh, npnn which the 
bonndary iscorreetly drawn from Demarcation Point to tiie liead of Portland Canal, 
with<»nt crossing any arm of the sea, and tiien is continned down Portland Canal 
and out to sea, l)etween Queen Charlotte and Prince (if Wales? islands. Portland 
Canal is marked " Portland Ch." 

The map of North America (Vol. I, PI. X) has much the same delineation of the 
boundary, but the drawing of this small-scale map is defective, Portland Canal being 
entirely omitted. The boundary is drawn to the sea about where the canal should 
have been shown. 

The tenth edition issued in 1902 and 1908 by Adam and Charles Black and the 
London Times Printing House has an article on Alaska (Vol. 25, p. 240) which 
describes the li.^irn' as lying north of 54° 40' and (juotes part of the language of the 
treaty of LS25. On page 241 is a small map of Alaska, in the letterpress, ujion 
which the l)oundary is shown with substantial accuracy. 

Volume 84 is devoted to maps and includes the following, which show the Alaskan 
boundary: No. 5S is a map of North America, on the scale of o70 English statute miles 
to 1 inch. It sh(nvs the boundary of the Alaskan lisiere with substantial accuracy, 
though the line of demarcation is perhaps a little too straight, somewhat disregarding 
the minor sinuosities of the coast. 

No. 59 is a map of the Dominion of Canada and Newfoundland, on the scale of 245 
English statute miles to 1 inch. This map shows a close agreement with No. 58, just 
described. On each map the line of demarcation crosses tlie Stikine above the con- 
fluence of the Iskoot. Neither map gives the names of Portland Canal and Observa- 
tory Inlet. 

No. 60 is a map of Manitoba, P>ritish Colundjia, and the Northwest Territories, on 
the scale of 120 English statute miles to 1 inch. In most respects it closely resembles 
the maps already described, l)ut the larger scale permits more detail to be given. 
The name Portland Canal appears west of that passage and parallel to it, al)ove Pearse 
Island. The name Observatory Inlet runs off to the eastward from a jxiint al)ove 
Nass Bay. The boundary, as represented by a l)roken line, is drawn throughout the 
length of Portland Canal and Inlet, passing east and south of Pearse and Wales 
islands, and from the mouth of Portland Inlet is carried westward on a parallel of 
latitude past Cape Muzon. 

No. 110 is a map of Alaska, on the scale of 120 English statute miles to 1 inch, the 
same as No. 60, which it very closely resembles. The name Portland Canal extends 
southward to the vicinity of Cape Fox. An in.set map, on the scale of 60 miles to an 
inch, shows Lynn Canal and the coast southward to the vicinity of Fort Wrangell 
more clearly. The line of demarcation preserves the same characteristics as already 
described. 

130. Maps of the Dominion of Cantida and New Fomulland, piil)lished 
by the Canadian Department of the Interior. 1902. 



MISCELLANEOUS. 

EXTRACTS FROM A VOYAGE OF DISCOVERY TO THE NORTH PACIFIC, ETC., 
CAPTAIN GEORGE VANCOUVER, LONDON, 1798. 

[Vol. I, Dedication.] Under the auspices of Your Majesty, the late 
indefatio-able Captain Cook had already shewn that a southern conti- 
nent did not exist, and had ascertained the important fact of the near 
approximation of the northern shores of Asia to those of America. 
To those oreat discoveries the exertions of Captain Vancouver will, I 
trust, be found to have added the complete certainty, that, within the 
limits of his researches on the continental shore of Xorth-West 
America, no internal sea, or other navig'al)le connuiuiication whatever 
exists, uniting the Pacitic and Atlantic oceans. 

[Introduction, pages V-VI.] The charts accompanying the accounts 
of their voyages, representing the North West coast of America to be 
so much broken by the waters of the pacitic, gave encouragement once 
more to hvpotheses; and the favorite opinion that had slept since the 



RKLATIV?: TO SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA. 251 

puliliciition of C'liptain Cook's hist vo3'ii(»'(\ of a north-oastcni coniimi- 
nicatioM bi'twtM'ii the waters of the pacific aiul atlaiitic oceans, was 
aoaiii roused from its state of slmiil>er. aiul t)roii<ilit forward with reno- 
vated xio'our. ()nc(> nioi'e the ai'chipelauo of St. Lazarus was called 
forth into l)ein<:\ and its existence almost assumed, upon the authority 
of a Spanish a(hniral named De Fonte. De Fonta. or De Fuentes; and 
of a Mr. Nicholas Shapely, from Boston in America, who wa.s stated 
to have penetrated through this archipelago, bv sailing through a 
mediterranean sea. on the coast of Norlli-West America, within a few 
leagues of the oceanic shores of that archi])elago: where he is said to 
have met the Admiral. The straits said to have been navigated by 
Juan De Fuca were also brought forw;ird in sui)p<>it of this o])inion; 
and. although the existence or extent of these discoveries remained 
still to l)e jiroved by an authenticated survey of the countries which 
had been thus stated to have been seen and passed through, yet the 
enthusiasm of modern doxit phUo><<>2y}iy, eager to revenge itself for the 
refutation of its former fallacious speculations, ventured to accuse Cap- 
tain Cook of '"hastily exploding" its systems; and. ranking him 
amongst i\\^ purHHera of peltry, daied even to drag him forward him- 
self in support of its visionary conjectures. - 

[Instructions appearing in Introduction, pages XVIII-XIX.J "In 
which examination the principal objects which you are to keep in 
view, are, 

■"1st. The ac(]uiring accurate information with respect to the naturd 
and extent of any water-communication which may tend, in any con- 
siderable degree, to facilitate an intercourse, for the purposes of com- 
merce, between the north-west coast, and the country upon the opposite 
side of the continent, which are inhabited or occupied l)y His Majesty's 
subjects. 

"■^dly. The ascertaining, with as much ])recision as possible, the 
number, extent, and situation of any settlements whicii have l)een 
made within the limits al)ove mentioned, by any European nation, and 
the time when such settlement was tirst made. 

"With respect to the tirst object, it would be of great importance 
if it should l)e found that, by means of any considerable inlets of the 
sea, or even of large rivers, communicating witli the lakes in the 
interior of the continent, such an intercourse, as hath been already 
mentioned, could be established: it will therefore be necessary, for 
the purpose of ascertaining this point, that the survey should be so 
conducted, as not only to ascertain the general line of the sea coast, 
but also the direction and extent of all such consideral»le inlets, whether 
made by arms of the sea, or by the mouths of large rivers, as may be 
likely to lead to, or facilitate, such communication as is above described. 

[Introduction, page XX.] "'The particular course of the survey 
nmst depend on the ditierent circumstances which may arise in the 
execution of a service of this nature; it is. however, propei' that you 
should, and you are th(>refore her(^l)v re(|uired and directtMl to })ay a 
particular attention to the examination of the supposed straits of fluan 
de Fuca. said to be situated between 4s and 41» north latitude, and 
to lead to an opening through which the sloop Washington is reported 
to have passed in iTsit, and to have come out again to the Northward 
of Nootka. The discovery of a near communication betwcMMi any such 
sea or strait, and any river running into, or from the lake of the woods, 
would l)e particularly useful. 



252 GEOGRAPHICAL AND TOPOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION 

"If you should t'iiil of discovcriiio- any sueh inlet, as is above nieu- 
tioiuHl. to tlio southward of Cook's river, there is the o-reatest prol)a- 
))ility that it will he found that the said river rises in some of the 
lakt\s alrtnidy known to the Canadian traders; and to the servants of 
the Hudson's l)ay eonipany; which point it would, in that case, be 
material to ascertain: and you are, therefore, to endeavour to ascer- 
tain according-ly, with as much precision jis the circumstances existino- 
at the time may allow: but the discovery of any similar comnnuiication 
more to the st)uthward (should any such exist) would he nuu-h more 
advantageous for the })urposes of connnerce, and should, therefore, be 
pi'eferalily attended to. and you are, therefore, to gi\'e it a preferable 
attention accord ini^ly." 

[Extract from Advertisement from the P^ditor.] The two first vol- 
umes, excepting- the introduction, and as far as page 28S of the third 
and last volume, were printed: and Captain Vancouver had finished a 
laborious examination of the imi)ression, and had compared it Avith the 
engraved charts and h(M\dlaiids of his discoveries, from the eonunence- 
ment of his survey in the year 17l»l, to the conclusion of it at the port 
of Valparaiso, on his return to England in the vear 17H5. He had 
also prepared the introduction, and a further ])art of the journal as far 
as page 408 of the last volume. The whole, therefore, of the impor- 
tant part of the work, which comprehends his geographical discov- 
eries and improvements, is now presented to the public, exactly as it 
Vould have been had Captain Vancouver been still living. The notes 
which he had made on his journey from the port of Valparaiso to his 
arrival at St. Jago de Chili, the capital of that kingdom, were unfor- 
tunately lost: and 1 am inde))ted to Captain Puget for having assisted 
me with his o))servations on that occasion. 

[Vol. HI, pages 504-505.] The extensive archipelago, in which 
De Fonta had sailed through crooked channels 2<)0 leagues; the river 
navigable for shipping that flowed into it, up which he had sailed in 
his ship ♦50 leagues; the water becoming fresh after he had entered and 
passed in it 20 leagues; its conuuunicating by other lakes and rivers 
with a passage, in which a ship had arrived from Boston in New 
England: are all so circumstancially particularized, as to give the 
account, at first sight, an air of proba])ility. and on examination, had 
it been found reasona])ly connected together, which is by no means 
the case: a trifling diflerence in point of description or situation would 
have l)een pardoned. 

The Rio de los Reyes Mr, Dalrymple states (according to the Spanish 
geograi)hers, under the authority of which nation De Fonta is said to 
have sailed) to l)e in the 43d: according to the P'.nglish in the 5od; and 
according to the French, in the (iSd degree of north latitude, on the 
western coast of North America. If it ])e necessary to make allowance 
for the ignorance of De Fonta, or the errors in his observations, any 
other parallel along the coast may be assigned with equnl correctness. 

Under the 43d parallel of north latitude on this coast, no such archi- 
pelago nor river does exist; but between the 4Tth and 57th degrees of 
north latitude, there is an archipelago composed of imumiera))le islands, 
and crooked channels; yet the evidence of a navigal)le I'iver flowing 
into it. is still wanting to prove its identity: and as the scrupulous 
exactness with Avliich our survey of the continental shore has been 
made within these limits, precludes the possil)ility of such a river hav- 
ing ))een passed unnoticed by us, as that described to be of Rio de los 



RELATIVK TO SoFTHKASTKHN ALASKA. 253 

Reyes, I reiiuiin in full coiirKlcncc. tlmt some crcclit will licroiifter 
be given to tlic testimony roultiiii;- from our researches, and that 
the'i)hiin truth undisuuiseil, with which our hil)ours have been repre- 
sented: will i)e justly a[)pveciated. in refutation of ancient unsupi)orted 
traditions. 

1 do not, however, mean i)ositively to deny the discoveries of De 
Fonta. I only wish to investigate the fact, and to ascertain the truth; 
and 1 am content with having used my endeavours to prove their 
improt)ability as pul)lished to "the world! The broken region which 
so long occupied our attention, cannot possibly be the archipelago of 
St. Lazarus, since the principal feature by wdiich the identity of that 
archipelago could be proved is that of a navigable river for shipping 
flowing into it, and this certainly does not exist in that archipelago 
which has taken us so nuieh time to explore; hence the situation can- 
not l)e the same, and for that reason I have not attixed the name of 
De Fonta, De Fonte, or Fuentes to any part of those regions. It is 
however to l)e rememl)ered, that our geography of the whole coast of 
North West America is not yet complete, and that the French navi- 
gators, who have stated the archipelago of St. Lazarus to be in the 
H3d degree of north latitude, may yet not be in an error. 

The stupendous liarrier mountains certainly do not seem to extend 
in so lofty and connected a range to the northward of the head of 
Cook's inlet, as to the southeastward of that station: and it is possible 
that in this ptirt, the chain of mountains may admit of a connnunication 
with the eastern country, which seiMus to be almost impracticable fur- 
ther to the southward. In this conjecture we are somewhat warranted 
by the similarity ol)served in the race of people inhabiting the shores 
of Hudson's bay and those to the northward of North West America. 

In all the parts of the continent on which wo landed, we nowhere 
found any roads or paths through the woods, indicating the Indians on 
the coast having any intercourse with the natives of the interior part of 
the country, nor were there any articles of the Canadian or Hudson's 
bay traders found amongst the pe()])l(^ with whom we met on any part 
of the continent or external sea shores of this extensive countrv. 



LETTER FROM SIR .1. II. I'KI-LY, l'.ART., TO KARL (MJKY. DATED Lo SKP 
TEMBER, 1841> — PAIJLIAMENTAUY PATKHS. IIOISE OF COMMONS. 11 
JULY, 1850. 

'• " * * I have now the iionour to forward to you a statement 
of the rights as to territory, trade, taxation and govermnent claimed 
and exercised by the Hudson's Bay Company on the Continent of 
North America. accomi)anied with a map of North America, on which 
the territories claimed l)y the Hudson's Hay Com]mny, in virtue of the 
charter granted to them l)y King Charh^s the Second, are coloured 
green, the other British territories pink, and those of Russia yellow. 
I have, etc.. 

(Signed) J. II. Pei.ly." 

[Note. — The map referred to is the one reproduced as No. lit in the 
Atlas accompanying the British Cas(>. | 

•2^'S-2id — AP 17 



254 GEOGRAPHICAL AND ToroC^KAI'HICAL I>JF(»KM ATION 

l/UNIVKRS. I'AHIS. lS4tl. I'lKMIN DIOOT FHKHKS, KUITEUHS. 

[Fame »)l\ I Article: LDrej^on: " Kn 1825 uii autre traite fiit con- 
clu entre la Kus.sie et la Grande-Bretaji'iie. qui tixait ainsi la doliiuita- 
tioii (lu territoiro de eetto dorniere puissance en Aineri(iue. Ello 
dcvait coninuMicer dorenavant au point le plus ,sud de Tile du })i'ince 
de (lalles, par Ics o-i"- 4(1' vers Test. jus(ju" a la oiande entree sui- le 
continent apj)elee Portland Cliannel. en se ])rol()no-eant par le milieu 
de ce pa^sau'e jus()u' au 5(i de latitude. A i)artir de la on lui t'aisait 
suivre le sonunet des nioiitagnes hoi'dant^ la cote a dix lieues de pro- 
fondeur nord-ouest jusqu' au niont Saint-Elias; puis on la prolonj^'eait 
au nord, en la diriocant jusfju' a rintersection des niontaoncs avec le 
141^ de lono-itude (nieridien ouest de Greenwich) jus(iu* a la nier 
(ilacial." 

[Pa_<i"e (>5.] " I/Aineri(|ue Kusse conipiend la partie la ])lus reculee 
de la cote nord-ouest; son etendue est ainsi tixee <ieooraphi(jueinent 
par M. Yerniolotf; L'extreniite sud de ces possessions conunence dans 
Tile nonuuee du ])rince de Galles, au 54" de.u'. 40' de latitude nord: 
puis la limite continue vers le nord-nord-ouest, le lono- de la cote eon- 
tinentale coniprenaiit toute cette cote elle-menie et les iles adjacentcs. 
A partir du niont Elie la frontiere interieure tourne l)rusquement au 
nord-est, et court a travers les t(>rres vers Tocean Arctique." 

[Translation.! 

[Pao-e (ij?.] '' In 1S25 another treaty was concluded l)etween Kussia 
and ( Treat Britain which thus tixed the boundary of the American 
tei-ritory of the latter-power. This boundary was henceforth to begin 
at the most southern point of Prince of Wales Island, to proceed 
eastward along the parallel of 54 40' as far as the great inlet of 
the continent which is called Portland Channel and to extend to the 
5«5th degree of latitude, passing through the middle of this chaimel. 
From that point the line was to follow the snmmit of the mountains 
extending along the coast at a distance of ten leagues therc^from. as 
far as Mount St. Elias; and after reaching the intersection of the 
mountains with the I4lst degree of longitude west of (Treenwich it 
was to run due north to the Arctic Sea.'' 

[Page 65.] "Russian America includes the most remote pai't of the 
Northwest Coast; its geographical extent is thus stated by Mr. Yer- 
niolotf; The southern extremity of these possessions conmiencivs in the 
island called Prince of Wales, at 54 40' of north latitude; the l)ound- 
ai'v then extends to the north-northwest, along the continental coast, 
including all of that coast itself and the adjacent islands. Fi'om Mount 
St, Elias the inland boundary turns abruptly to the north-east and 
runs across coiaitry towai'd the Arctic Ocean.'' 



EXTRACT FROM "THE SEA OF MOUNTAINS, AN ACCOUNT OF LORD DUF- 
FERIN's tour THROUGH BRITISH COLUMBIA IN iNlCi. m' MOLYNEUX 
ST. .JOHN." LONDON, HURST & BLACKETT, 1877. 

Volume I, page ;^.so. the author says, speaking of miners returning 
from th(> Cassiar diggings: "These men were on th(Mr way southward 
from the Cassiar luines, up the Stickeen Kivei', where there are about 



RELATIVK TO S()l"l IIEASTKKX ALASKA. 255 

two tlioiisuiul men workiiiu-. The mines are in British territory, hut 
there is a stri]) of Alaska, al)oiit tliirtv jniles broad, whieh interv enes 
between Canada and the sea at this point and the miners therefore 
make th(Mr way to ^^ ranuel. where they are picked up by the vessels 



from Sitka." 



RErOHT OF II. .1. CAMBIE, ENGINEER IN CHARGE OF RAILAVAY EXPLOR- 
ATORY SURVEYS. SESSIONAL PAPERS. 115 TO 208, CANADA. VOL. 

XIII, NO. 11, 1880. P. 8!i. (appendix no. 2)' 

[Extract in roganl to Wark Inlet.] 

'■ Point \\'ales is situated opposite the entrance and would ap]iear 
from tile chart to be only about three and a half miles distant, while 
in reality it is little if an^^thing- .short of eioht miles distant. 

This is a matter of some importance, for it is the southern extremity 
of Alaska, and were it as close as is shown, a batterv placed there by 
th(» Government of the United States could prevent vessels entering- 
or leaving- Wai'k Inlet." 

On page 71, in the report of Geo. A. Reefer, the following occurs: 
"The entrance to Wark Inlet from the Portland Channel, some eight 
miles wide at this point, is easy of approach. l)ut not excelling 2(i(>0 
feet in width, with deep water to the l)ase of the blutis forming the 
shorivs on eith(>r side." 



A directory for the navigation of the north PACIFIC OCEAN, 
WITH DESCRIPTIONS OF ITS COASTS, ISLANDS, ETC., FROM PANAMA 
TO BEHRING STRAIT, AND JAPAN; ITS WINDS, CURRENTS, AND PAS- 
SAGES. THIRD EDITION. BY ALEXANDER GEORGE FINDLAY, F. R. G. S.. 
ETC. LONDON, RICHARD HOLMES LAURIE, 58 FLEET STREET. E. C. , 

1886. 



[Page 556.] '" Maskelyne Point, the S. E. enti'ance point of Port- 
land Inlet, was so named after the astronomer: it lies 1^ mile X. ^ E. 
of Parkin Islands, and S. E. i S., 3 miles from Wales Point, the X. W. 
point of Portland Inlet entrance. 

|Page5»;i.| Wales Island, on the X. W. side of the entrance to 
Portland Inlet, is about 7 miles long east and west. * * * 

Portland Inlet extends X. by E. f E. from the X. E. part of Chat- 
ham Sound for Id miles, thence X. l)y E. for 10 miles, where it divides. 
Observatory Inlet continuing northward, and Portland Canal taking a 
X. W. and noriherly direction. It is from 2^ to 1- miles wide, and the 
shores are high and bold, especially the eastern. Needle P<((1\ on the 
S. E. side of Xasoga Gulf, is a shar]) snow-clad pinnacle, 50(Mi ft. high. 
The entranc(>, between Wales and ^laskelyne Points, is about o miles 
wide. 

Point Wales is situated opposite the entrance of Wark Iidet, and 
would api)ear, from the chart to be onh' 3^ miles distant, while in 
reality it is little, if anything, short of 8 miles distant. — ]\Ir. II. .1. 
Cambie (Engineer in charge of Railway Surveys in 187H). 

I Page 562.] Peaise Island forms the we.stern side of P<»rtland Iidet. 
York Islet, 5 cables X. E. of the north extreme of Wales Island (p. 561). 



256 GPXKJRAPHICAL AND TdPOCJKAPHICAL INFOKMATION 

on the west side of Portland Inlet, is wooded and 100 ft. hig'h. [Cen- 
ter Id. ^J Abreast it an intricate chaiini'l [Wales Passao-e^J leads west- 
ward to Tonoas Passajj'e. " * '■ Portland Point, about IS miles 
within the inlet, lies 8^ n)iles north of Lizard Point: it forms the 
turning' point into Portland Canal, and is jiioh and hold. 

Kamsden Point, which di\ides()hs('r\atory Inlet from Portland Ciinal, 
lies '2i miles N. N. E. of Portland Point, and has a dangerous cluster 
of rocks, awash and sunken, extending 4 cables 8. E. of it. * ^^ * 

[Page 565.] Portland Canal (so named from the noble family of 
Bentinck) diverges from Point Hamsden, in a N. W. direction, for 
about <) miles; thence it trends north l;) miles farther, and from thence 
to its head the ])earing is N. W. ))y W. 42 miles, the canal trending 
westward of this line. It terminates in low, marshy land, in lat. 55-^ 
56', 80 miles from its entrance in Ciiatham Sound. * * * Portland 
Canal is the boundary between the British possessions and the Alaska 
territory of the United States; it is only fre(|uented by the Hudson's 
Ba}' Company's officers in their steam-vessel for the purposes of occa- 
sional trade with the natives. The continental shore to the northward 
belonged to Russia and was ceded by purchase, to the United States 
in 18r>7, as detailed in the next chapter. 

Kamsden Point is described on ]). 562. '■" * * 

Tree Point is the north extreme of Pearse Island, and westward of 
it is the entrance of a channel leading to Tongas Passage. This channel 
runs parallel with the direction of the main inlet, and gradually de- 
creases in width southwestward. contimiing PJ miles from its N. E. 
entrance to an opening to the S. E. into the main channel. Pursuing 
the same direction, it enters much broken land, intersected by arms, 
forming an island at)out 10 miles in circuit, to the N. E. of which is 
an arm running in a N. E. direction, ending in low, steep, rocky 
shores. * * * 

Bear Kiver Hows between high mountains, tiirough an extensive 
wooded valley and flat, at the head of Portland Canal, and divides near 
its mouth into several streams. The Observation Spot, at the wooded 
high-water mark of the point near the centre of the mouth of Bear 
River, is in lat. 55'- 56' 3" N., long. 180^ 3' 27" W. The river rises 
10 miles iidand, at the foot of Disraeli Mountains, the highest peak of 
which is a snow-clad pinnacle 7000 ft. high. * * * 

Tongas, the southernmost of the military posts established by the 
I'nited States in their new territory, is on a small island, one of the 
Wales Island group, which form the north side of the entrance to 
the Portland Canal. ^' 



GEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HLSTORY SURVEY OF CANADA. ALFRED R. C. 
SELWYN, DIRECTOR. ANNUAL REPORT, VOL. Ill, PT. 1." 




« Report on an Exploration in the Yukon District, N. W. T., and Adjacent North- 
ern Portion of P>ritish Cohnnhia. IJv George M. Dawson. 



KELATIVK TO SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA. ''lo i 

iiiore southoni |H)rti()ii of IJritish ("(riunil)!:!. Beyond the \icinity of 
Lynn Cauiil. this iiioiintiiin axis runs hchiiul the St. Eliiis Aljjs. ceas- 
in*i" to 1)0 the (.•oiitiiiciital t)<)r(lor. and may 1)0 sjiid to \)v ontircly 
iiukiiown, as any indications of mountains which haxc appeared on 
this part of the map are purely- conjectuial. Notwithstanding' the 
great width of the Coast Ranges, it is not known that an\^ of their 
constituent mountains attain very notable altitudes, l)ut it is probable 
that a great number of the peaks exceed a height of SOOO feet. These 
rang(\s are coniposed of very numerous mountain ridges, which are 
not always uniform in direction, and. so far as has been ()l)sei'\'ed. 
ther(> is no single^ culminating or dominant range which can be traced 
for anv considera1)le distance. 



GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OK CANADA. (i. y\. DAWSOX. DIRECTOR. ANNUAL 
REPORT, VOL. MI, 1894. 

Rrpoi't on tltc (ii-Ki of the Kaiiihx/ps, Map-Slieet^ BriilxJi Cohmih/d, 
By George; M. Dairsoii. 

On referring to any general map of British Columbia, it will I)e seen 
:hat the Kamloops sheet includes but a narrow selvage of the inland 
?ide of the Coast Ranges, or wide l)elt of mountainous country which 
runs ])arallel to the coast for the entire length of the province. This 
selvage consists in fact of but one of the component minor ranges of 
this complex of mountains, bounded to the east by the Fraser Valley 
and to the west by a somewhat important parallel depression which 
has not been explored, liut which appears to be occupied by the head- 
waters of the Salmon River and Quoieek River. The axis of this range 
is granitic, while both its flanks consist largely of altered stratified 
rocks, often schistose or slaty but not true crystalline schists. P^xcept 
in the greater importance of these stratified rocks here, this part of 
the Coast Ranges is, however, so far as known, identical in its charac- 
ter and structure with the whole extent of the mountainous country 
in this vicinity and may thus be taken as topical of it. 

From the valle\' of the Fraser, no adequate idea of the topograi)hy 
of the Coast Ranges can be formed, as the lower shoulders of the 
mountains preclude any general view of their higher parts. A 
line \iew of one part of the range may be had from the line of the 
I'aiiway. l)etween Lytton and Nicoamen. in ascending the Thom|)son 
xallev: l)ut in order to obtain a just concej)tion of its character, it 
must be seen from points along the east side of the Fras(>r of more 
than .')(,»0U feet in height, or fi'om some of its own sununits. 

The side of the range bordering the Fraser, is found to present a 
nearly uniform wall of mountain slopes to the river, and is composed 
of very steeply inclined high spurs of nearly similar form, each of 
which is separated from the next by a deep narrow gash, which may 
either l)e that of a small torrent or that of one of the main strctuus 
rising far back in th(> range. Above and behind these s])urs. the 
mountains become moi'e rugged in shape and show more hare rock, 
while h(M'e and there an ai)i)ai'ently dominant ])eak stands notably 
a))ove the rest anil carries largt> patches of snow throughout the 
sununer. 



258 GEOORAl'IIK'AL AND r( »P()(;K A I'H IC A L I \ K( »KM A'l'K )N 

Such u view of the raiip' may he oaiiied from ahiiost any of the 
mountains on the east side of the Fraser, ])ut on ascending one of the 
peaks of the range itself to an eU'vation of 8000 feet or more, it is 
found that the points which seemed to dominate, as viewed from lower 
levels and from the eastward, owe this appearance chiefly to their 
proximity to the eclg-e of the range. From such a peak, it will l)e 
observed that there is little regularity in the trend of the component 
mountain masses of th(> range, t)ut that there is a very notable uni- 
formity in the elevation of its higher ])oints. It will be obser\ed that 
a large number of these approximate in height to SOOO feet, while a 
few only, reach or slightly surpass *J 00 feet; that there are few 
instiinces of really dominant summits with lesser subsidiary mountains 
grouped around them, l)ut that in widely extended views to the south, 
west, or north, the very numerous and closely set sharp summits run 
together to form a jagged, but in the main nearly level horizon line. 
To illustrate this point, it may be mentioned that, on ono occasion, 
from Stein Mountain, looking ()\('i' the crests of all th(> n(>arei' moun- 
tains, the sunnnit of Mount Haker. of the Cascade Range, moi'c tlian 
a hundred miles distant, was clearly recognized as a markedly out- 
standing point, although its elevation is not nuicli more than lO.iloO 
feet. 



THE YUKON TERKITORY, LONDON, 18!»8. 
[Coiilaiiiiii.i,' iiarrativL's by \V. II. Dall, (iuorge M. Daw.son and William Ogilvie.] 

Froii) tile iKii'i'dt'i r<_^ of ail v.vj)l(n'(ifu>u wade in 1S87 in the ITiihini 
District l>ii (iroiyr J/. Jhra^soa, I). A'., J\ G. S. 

[Pages 2-i8-250.] I therefore decided to set about the building of 
another boat, suitable for the ascent of the Lewes, and on the second 
day after we had begun work, Mr. Ogilvie very opportunely ap[)eared. 
After having completed our ])oat and obtained Mr. Ogilvie's prelimi- 
nary ii'port and map-sheets, together with the necessary provisions, 
we b(\gan tht^ ascent of the Leaves, and from its head-w\aters we crossed 
the mountains by the Chilkoot l^iss and reachinl the coast at the head 
of Lynn Canal on the 20th September. 

In addition to the })hysical obstacles to be encountered on the long 
route abo\e outlined, some anxiety was caused by reported Indian 
troul)les on the Yukon. On reaching the mouth of the Lew^s we 
ascertained that the story was entirely false, but it had none the less 
kept us in a state of watchfulness during a great part of the summer. 

Th(> entire distance travelled l)v us during the exploration amounts 
to 1,822 miles. This, taken in connection with the coast-line betAveen 
the Stikine and Lynn Canal, circumscribes an area of about (53.200 
square miles, the interior being, even yet. but for the accounts of a 
few ])rosp(^ctors and I'eports of Indians. 1i rra incotjnita. The same 
desci'iption, with little (pialiHcation, a])])lies to the whole sui-round- 
ing region outside the sur\eved circuit, but much general informa- 
tion concerning the country has been ol)taine(l. 

The region traversed by the routes just mentioned, including the 
extreme northern part of British Columbia and the southern part of 
the Yukon district (as previously defined), is drained by three great 
river systems, its waters reaching the Pacific by the Stikin(\ the Mac- 
kenzie, (and eventually th(» Arctic Ocean), by the Liai'd. and Hchring 



RELATIVK TO S( )rTIIEA^^T?:KN ALASKA. 259 

Si'ii, t>v llu' Yukon. Tlic soulh-ciistcni pai't of the r('<iion is dixided 
Ijetwooii the two tirst-naincd I'ivtTs whoso trilmtarv sti-cains iiitcrlofk, 
tlu> Stikiiic iiiakiny' its way (•<)ini)lot('ly tliroutili the Coast Haiiiics in a 
south-wosterly direction, while the Liard. on a noith-casterly liearino-, 
cuts across the Rocky Mountains to tlie Mackenzie valley. The water- 
shed separating- these rivers near Dease Lake has a height of 2. 73(1 feet, 
and both streams may be generally characterized as very rai^id. 

To the north-westward, l)ranches of the Stikine and Liard again inter- 
lock with the head-waters of several trilnitaries of the Yukon, which here 
unwater the entire great area enclosed on one side by the Coast Ranges, 
on the other by the Rocky Mountains. The actual watershed, between 
the Liard and Pelly, on our lin(> of route, was found to have an eleva- 
tion of 3150 feet, l)ut it is, no doubt, much lower in the central por- 
tion of the region between the Rocky Mountains and Coast Ranges. 

To the north of the Stikine, at least one otluu' river, the Taku, also 
cuts completely across the Coast Ranges, but its basin is comparatively 
restricted and little is yet known of it. 

It will lie noticed, that while the s(>veral branches of the Y^ukon con- 
form in a general way to the main orographic axes, the Stikine and Liard 
ajipear to be to a large degree indepiMident of these, and to flow counter 
to the direction of three mountain I'anges. 

The region, being a portion of the Cordilhn-a belt of the west coast, 
is naturally mountainous, l)ut it comprises as well important areas of 
merely hilh^ or gently rolling countrv, l)esides many wide, Hat-bot- 
tomed river- valleys. Higher in its south-eastern part- that drained 
by the Stikine and Liard — it subsides gradually, and apparently uni- 
formly, to the north-westward: the mountains at the same time l)ecom- 
ing more isolated, and l)eing sei)arated by broader tracts of low land. 
The general l>ase level, or hcMght of the main valleys, within the Coast 
Ranges, thus declines from about :i5(Kj f(>et. to nearly 1500 feet at the 
confluence^ of the Lewes and Felly rivers, and the average base-level 
of the entire region may be stated as IxMng a little over 2000 feet. 

[Page 2()4:.] The width of the belt of granitoid rocks composing the 
Coast Ranges is, on the Stikine, about sixty-tive miles, measured from 
their sea border inland at right angles to the main direction of the 
mountains. It is somewhat less in the latitude of the Chilkoot Pass, 
but may be assumed to occupy a border of the maiidand al)out hfty 
miles in width along the whole of this part of the coast. Hroadly 
viewed, however, the coast archipelago in r(>ality represents a i)artly 
submei'ged margin of the Coast Rang(>s, and granitic rocks are largely 
represented in it also. The t'xamination of these two northern cross- 
sections of the Coast Ranges, serves, witli observations previously 
made, to demonstrate the practical identity in geological character of 
this great orographic axis, from the vicinity of the Eraser River to 
the f)Oth parallel of north latitude— a length, in all, of about !>00 miles. 

[ Pag(> 2TS. 1 Since the year 1<ST3, when the placer gold mines of Cas- 
siar were first developed, the Stikine Riv(>r has become a somewhat 
important avenue of conununication froiu the coast to the interior of 
the northern })art of liritish Columl)ia, Like the Fraser. the Skeeua. 
the Xaas and the s(>\-cral other smaller sti earns, it ris(\s to the east of 
the lu'oad belt of mountains which constitutes the Coast Ranges, and 
cuts completely through this belt with a nearly uniform gradient. In 
size and general character the Stikine closely resend)les the Skeena, 
which reaches the coast 200 mihvs fui'ther south. It is navigalde for 
stern-wheel steamers of light draught and good power, to (ilenora. 12(5 



260 (IKOGKAl'IIICAL AND TUl'OGKAPHK'AL INFUHMATIOX 

miles fi-oni Kothsay Point, at its mouth, and imdor favoi'ablo circum- 
stances to Telcorapii Creek, twelve miles farther. Al)()\e Teleorai)h 
Creek is the ''(ireat Ciifion '' which extends for many miles and is (juite 
im})assal)le either for steamers or boats, thouyh ti'aversed by miners 
in winter on the ice. The headwaters of the Stikine are unknown, 
but lie for the most part to the south of the r)Sth parallel of north lati- 
tudt\ in a country said to be very moiuitainous. From Telegraph 
Creek, the head of navigation, a pack-trail sixty-two miles and a half 
in length, constructed by ihe British Columbian Government, follows 
the valley of the Stikine, generally at no great distance from the river, 
and eviMitually crosses from the Tanzillu or Third North Fork to the 
head of Dease Lake, which may l)e regarded as the centre of the Cas- 
siar mining district. 

[I'ages 2S1»-2!M). I Tliough the position of the Stikine is indicated 
on Vancouver's charts by the open channels of the I'iver. and the 
shoals about its estuary are mapped, tiie existence of a large river was 
not recognized by that na\'igator, who visited this part of the coast in 
1793. According to Mr. W. H. Dall, the river was first found l)v fur 
traders in 179!». In 1834 the Hudson Bay Company fitted out a vessel 
named the Dryad i()Y the purposes of establishing a i)()st and colonv 
at the mouth of the Stikine. V)ut the Russians, being api)riscd of this 
circumstance, sent two small armed vessels to the spot, and constructed 
a defensive work, which they named Fort Dionysius, on the site of the 
])resent town of A^'rang(^ll. Finding themschcs thus foi'cstalled. the 
Company retired. This dispute was com])romised in 1S37. when an 
arrangement was made l)y Avhich the Company leased for a term of 
years all that part of the Russian tei"ritory which now constitutes the 
''coast strip"' of Alaska, and the ''fort" was handed over to the 
Company, the British Hag being hoisted imder a salute of seven guns, 
in June, 1840. 

1 Page 34U.J The se\'eial ruine(l chimneys of Fort S«dkirk still to 
be seen, with other traces on the ground, are in thtMuselves evidence 
of the imi)()i'tant dimensions and careful construction of this post. 
The estal)lisliment consisted. I belie^•e, in 1852. of one senior and one 
junioi' cl(M-k, and eight men. The existence of this post in the centre 
of the inland or " \Vood Indian" country had, however, ver}' seriously 
interfered with a luci'ative and usurious trade which the Chilkoot and 
Chilk^it Indians of Lynn Canal, on the Coast, had long been accus- 
tomed to carry on with these p(H)ple: acting as intermediaries between 
them and the white tradcM's on the Pacitic and holding the passes at 
the headwatiM's of the Lowes with all the s})irit of robl)er barons of 
old. In 1.S52. I'umors were current that these |)eople meditated a raid 
upon the post, in conse(|uence of which the fi'iendly local Indians 
stayed by it nearly jdl summer, of their own accord. It so happened, 
however, that they absented themselves for a couple of days, and at 
that uiducky moment the Coast Indians arrived. The post was 
unguarded by a stockad(\ and. yielding to sheer force of nund)ers. 
the occupants were ex])elled and the ])lace was i)illaged, on the 21st of 
Auoust. Two days afterward Cam])I)ell. having found the local 
Indians, returned with them and surrounded the post, but the robbers 
had tlown. 

[Pages 374-37o. | Ma\ing heard I'epoi'ts of the existenc(> of a second 
pass from Taiya Iidet to the lakes on the head-waters of tlu^ Leaves. 
Mr. Ogdvie sent Capt. W. Moore to make an examination of it. with 



RKLA'IIVK TO SOrTHEASTKRX ALASKA. 2(>1 

instruction^ to rejoin the })arty to the cast of tlic luouiitains. This 
pass Mr. Ooilvie has named AVhite Pass in honour of the hite Minister 
of the Interior. It knives the coast at the mouth of the Shka^way 
River ^' live miles south of the head of Taiya Inlet, and runs parallel 
to Chilkoot Pass at no t>reat distance froiu it. The distance from the 
C'oast to the summit is stated as seventeen miles; the first five miles 
are of le\el bottoiuTand. thickly timbered. ' The next nine luiles is in 
a canon-like valley where heavy work would lie encountered in con- 
structint>" a ti'ail. The remainiiiii" distance of three miles, to the sum- 
mit, is comparatively easy. Tlie altitude of the sunnnit is routihh' 
estimated at 2H(»(t feet. Peyond the summit a wide vallev is entered, 
and the descent to the tirst little lake is said to be not more than one 
hundred feet. The mountains rapidly decrease in height and abrupt- 
ness after the summit is passed, and the valley bifurcates, one bi-anch 
leading" to the head of Windy Arm of Tagish Lake, the other (down 
which the wat(M' drains) going to Pako Arm of the same lake. 

There is still another route into the interior, which the Indians 
occasionally employ \u winter when the travelling is good ovov the 
snow. This leaves the Nourse or west branch of tlie Taiya. and runs 
west of the Chilkoot Pass to the head of Lake Lindeiuan. 

The tirst map of the Chilkoot and Chilkat Passes and their vicinity 
is due, as mentioned further on, to Dr. A. Krause. The passes con- 
necting the coast with the interior countr}', from the heads of Lynn 
Canal to the upi)er waters of the Lewes, were always jealously guarded 
by the Chilkat and Chilkoot Indians of the coast, who carried on a 
lucrative ti'ade with the interior or "' Stick" Indians, and held these 
pe()})le in a species of subjection. Though the existence of these routes 
to the inteiior was known to the traders and prospectors, the hostility 
of the Chilkats and Chilkoots to the passage of whites long ])revented 
tluMi' (>x])loration. 



SAILING DIRECTION'S FOR BERING SEA AND ALASKA, INCLUDING THE 
NORTH-EAST COAST OF SIBERIA. COMPII-ED FROM VARIOUS SOURCES 
BY VICE-ADMIRAL J. P. MACLEAR. PL'HLISIIED BY ORDER OF THE 
LOHDS COMMISSIONERS OF THE ADMIRALTY. LONDON. ISHcS, 

[Page 27.] '^ Dl.i-on Kntnina-. — Vessels from sea bound to Port 
Simi)s<)n, B. C.. to Tongass. or to ^VrangeIl byway of Clarence sti'ait. 
usually enter here: it is pi"actical)le, however, to enter south of Queen 
Charlotte islands by Hecate strait, and by Brown and Edye passages 
into Chatham sound. The description of this last route is given in the 
British Columbia Pilot. The l)oundaiv line between British Columl)ia 
and Alaska runs east and west through Dixon entrance."" 



BRITISH COLUMBIA PILOT, SECOND EDITION, PUBLLSHED BY ORDER OF 
THE I,()RDS COM:\nssi<)NEPS OF THE AD:\riKAL'rV. LONDON. IS'.tS, 

[Page l.J •* British C()lunil)ia. a ])rovince of the Dominion of Canada, 
entered the confederation in 1S71. It includes ^'ancouver Island, 
(first constituted a British colony in 1849), also the numerous islands 



"So naiiuMl (.11 chart in l'. S. ("oast Pilot: Schkasrue Kiver of Krause. 



2(V2 (;k()(;raphi("al and topogkaphical information 

and ;ulja("(Mit maiiiluiKl of North Aincrica lyinu- hetweon Roberts point 
in (iooroia strait, latitude 4'J N.. and tlie (-(Mitrc of Portland canal, 
latitude T)-!-^ 40' N. to 5H- N. The averao-e breadth of liritish Coluni- 
l)ia is about 25(i miles, and the area, inc iudino- \'ancouver island and 
Queen Charlotte islands, is roughly estimated at 4ti(;,'M»(i square miles.'' 



DcpOS/tHIII of IIllllK f /*. U'ltftl' 

Cmtei) States of Amerklv, San Francisco^ Cal/fonnd^ sx. 

IIouKM' P. Hitter ])eino- duly sworn deposes and says: 1 am a eivil 
and lopoo raphieal engineer l)y profession and at present in the service 
of the United States (xovernment holding- a position as assistant in the 
Coast and Geodetic Survey. I held this position in 1893 when I was 
ordered to dut}^ in Alaska as topographer. 1 was then thirtA'-eig'ht 
years of age. I proceeded from Victoria, British CoIuml)ia. on the 
steamer Ifos.Hhr and arrived at Holkham IJay on the tenth day of May, 
Th(^ next day 1 joined the Canadian toj)ographic party under Mr. A. J. 
P)rabazon. From this date until the s(>cond of September I depended 
upon this party for food and transportation. 

The area of country covered by the topographic reconnaissance made 
during this season extends from the entrance of- Holkham Hay on the 
north to Port Houghton on the south. I ascended tive or six different 
mountains with Mr. Brabazon from which I had a good view into the 
interior. From these view points I saw a great mountain system, the 
culminating peaks of which were l)eyond the limits of the topography 
delineated by us. The moiuitain masses are so distributed that no 
d(>Hned mountain range trending north and south pai'allel to the coast 
can be said to exist within the area descril)ed b}- me. Within the range 
of vision the altitudes of numerous ci'ags and peaks, which 1 saw. gradu- 
ally increase fi'om the coast inland. 

Homer P. Kitter, 
.1.S-.S-. U. S. C it' (r. Surrey. 

Swoi'n and sid)s('ril)ed to l)efore me this i}l»th day of April lllOo. 

Tllo:\IAS S. BURNES, 

Notanj PiihJ'ic, in and for the Cifij tt' i'oiini ij of Sun Franchco. 
My term of office expirees Jan. 8th A. D. llMil. 

There is seal wdiich reads: Thomas S. Burnes. Notary Pul)lic, City 
& Co. San Francisco. Cal. 



I)(j)osifiuri of JoJni F. Pr<(ff. 

United States of Amekica. Sraftl,-^ W<isJi!n(iton. ss. 

John F. Pratt, having i)een duly sworn, deposes and says: I am a 
civil engineer l)v prof(\ssion and at present in the service of the United 
States (xovernment holding the position of assistant in the Coast and 
Geodetic Survey. In this capacity I made my lii-st trip to Alaska on 
survey work in 1898 at which tim(> I was forty-tiv<^ years of age. I 
was attached to the party of Mr. O. IL Tittmann, then an assistant in 



KELATTVE TO SOUTHKASTKKX ALASKA. 20)3 

tho Coast and (icodetio Survpy. and accompanied him from Port 
Townscnd on the steamer /lasshr. As we appioached Foi't Wranyell 
we had a g-ood view of the monntains in tlie Stikine X'allcv. High 
snow clad peaks which were many iniles iidand were noted over the 
tops of the nearl)y mountains. On the loth day of May I joined the 
Canadian topographical ])arty under Mr. J. (xihhon and from that date 
until the thii-d of Sejitemher this i)arty furnished me with food and 
trans])ortation. 1 accomi)anied Mr. (Jihhon in the ascent of the ten 
t)r more mountains on the maiidand fi'om which the topography of the 
area hounded by the Stikine Kivei' on the south and east and on the 
north l)v a line at right angles to the coast through Thomas Bay Avas 
developed. 

During the season I ascended the Stikine KiNcr as far as the Great 
Glacier about 25 mile.s from Point Kothsay in an air line and climbed 
a peak on the west side of the river just below this point. From this 
elevation of 4.8(><» feet I obtained a good view of the mountains tow^ard 
the interior which are much higher than those toward the coast, and 
many of which do not appear on the Canadian map of the region. 
From this and the other peaks ascended hy me I could readily determine 
that there is no defined mountain I'ange anywhere within this region 
described by me within ten marine leagues from the coast, nor is there 
any formation of mountains which can be strung out into a range 
interrupted or pierced by the Stikine River. The great field of glacier 
with which a large portion of the country described by me is covered, 
slopes gently towards the coast, aird if not interrupted by the Stikine 
River would be continually higher as you recede from the coast. 

Again in 1894 I had charge of the survey around the head of Lynn 
Canal and during the season went up the Chilkat River to a point four 
miles above Kluquan and up the Taiya River and to the summit of 
Chilkoot Pass. In my trips up and down Lynn Canal I was imi)ressed 
l)y the topography of the country on each side. In general the moun- 
tains rise abruptly from the sea but the mountains increase in eleva- 
tion from the south towards the passes and east and west from the 
shores of the canal. The disposition of the mountain masses about 
Lynn Canal is such that no mountain axis trending in an easterly iind 
westerly direction is anywhere interrui)ted by the canal. Along the 
entire coast from Chilkoot Pass to the Stikine River I have seen only 
a broken irregular mountain system, with ])eaks l)ecoming higher as 
you go from the coast, without .mything like the continuity of a moun- 
tain range extending north and south parallel to the coast. 

J. F. PlIATT. 

Sworn ;md subscril)cd to before me this 1st day of May, VMVd. 
[SKAL.J William B. Allison, 

Xotdrif Piihllr III iiikJ for the State of Wns/iiiK/fon, 

R, x'nji ii<i lit S, iittli'. 

Drjiosifioii of i\ A. in//v/'. 

I'mtei) States of A:\ikri(A. Knj 11 /.v/. Florida, xx. 

P. A. \\^dker, having been duly sworn, deposes and says: I am a 
civil and topographical engineer by profession. I am at present in 
the service of the United States Government holding the position of 



264 GE(>(;KAl>Iir('AL AND T()l'()(iRAl'HI("AL INFORMATION 

assistiiiit ill the Coast and (ii'odctic Survov. I hclil this position of 
assistant in ls!t;-> at which time 1 was 86 years of aye. In this year, 
1893, I accompanied the party of Mr. H. (t. Ogden. an assistant in 
the Coast and (ireodetic Survey, on the steamer Pattei')«m sailing- from 
Port Townsend. Washington, for Ahiska. On the 11th of Ahiy 1 was 
landed at the entrance of Endicott Arm of Ilolkliam Bay and joined 
the Canadian topographical party in charge of Mr. .1. .1. McAithur, 
and on this party 1 became dependent for food and transi)ortation. 

The Held work of the season connnenced on ]\lay '1\ and continued 
until the tirst day of September. During this season I made not less 
than lifteen ascents of mountain peaks ranging from i^.dddfeet to5,(»00 
feet, and over, in height. Tliese mountain peaks, ascended, are dis- 
tributed along the coast from a YK)int near the entrance to Endicott 
Arm, to a point near the head of Taku Inlet, and are within twenty 
miles of the continental shore: the one most remote from the shore 
being about tive miles from the mouth of S]:)eel River. Over this entire 
area the shores are very steep and rocky, and landing places for the 
cano(^ and sail boat scarce; especially al)out the head of Ilolkliam Ray 
where in many places rocky cliti's rise almost jierpendicularly from the 
water's edge to a height of 3,000 feet and over. Almost the entire 
interior of the country is covered with glacier bearing mountains. 
From the various mountain peaks that 1 ascended on the mainland, I 
ol)served the general character of the topography of the country, as 
far inland as twenty to thirty miles beyond the inner limits of the 
country explored. The highest peaks which are visible are from 
twenty to thirty miles further inland than the inner limits of the 
explored region and ai'e not shown on the maps of the International 
Boundary Commission Survev. One of the inner peaks, which I 
called Tent Mountain, which was distinctly higher tlian any peak on 
Holkham Bay or Tracy Arm, I determined to lie nearly in the axis of 
Tracy Arm and about two miles from its head. 

Although the results of my tojiographical reconnoissance show spurs 
of mountain ranges running in almost all directions, the entire country 
explored by me during the season of 18!)3 is really covered by one 
immense connected mountain system, the protruding ])eaks of which 
increase^ in height with the increased distance from the coast. My 
oi)})()rtunities for seeing the mountain masses along the stretch of 
coast and in the interior within the teri'itory described by me were 
ample to permit me to say that nowhere within ten marine leagues 
from the coast does there exist within these regions, a delined moun- 
tain range which extends in a direction north and soutli parallel with 
the coast. There does not exist within this territory anything like a 
defined mountain chain, running north and south generally parallel 
to the coast, which in its course crosses Endicott Arm, Ilolkhani I^iy, 
Ti'acy Arm. Port Siiettishain. Taku Kiver or eitluM' of them, neither 
is there such a range which might be considered as pierced by all or 
eithei' of them. 

P. A. Wki.kkk. 

Sworn and subscribed to before me this 7 day of May. 11M»3. 

Fkaxk Dklaney, Xotunj PnhJic. 
There is seal which reads: Frank Delaney. Notary Public. Monroe 
Countv, Florida. 



KELATIVE TO S( ICTH HAS TKHX ALASKA. 21)5 

Dtqvtxif'nm ()f./i)Jiii At /.so/). 
L'nitkd States of Amkiuca. 

\] (Is/uiK/fo/l . I). ('.. ■S->>-. 

flohn Nelson heino' duly sworn. (l('[)oscs and says as follows: 1 am 
a civil cnoineer by profession. I am now oniployed in the Coast and 
Geodetie Survey as an assistant, and in 1S08 in this capacity was 
enoaoed in makino- a topooraphieal survey of the area, on the east side 
of Ciiilkoot Iidet which surrounds the valley and tril)utaries of the 
Kat/ehin River. In the accomplishment of this survey I ascended the 
\'allcv of the said river for ji distance of about fifteen (I.")) miles. From 
my ]i()ints of observation on the summits of the mountains in this 
reoMon I was enabled to note the ciiaracter of the topography to a dis- 
tance of thirty (:^)i<) miles from the coast. There exists in this I'egion 
no (leHnite mountain range lying in a north and south direction par- 
allel with the trend of the coast, but rather a serie.s of snow-capped 
peaks from five (5) to seven (7) thousand feet high, which increase in 
lieight as you recede fi'om the t-oast. From my points of observation 
at tlu^ head of tlie Katzehin Kiver I did not see any water shed or 
divide, tho drainage being all toward the Lynn Canal. 

John Nelson*. 

Sworn and subscribed to l^efore me this -iC) day of May. 1U0;>. 
[seal] N. (r. Henry, Aof(n-// PnhVif. 



DcjX'xlfloii of (Jeoiyc If. Il<{l]>'ni. 

United States of America. 

Norflnrii Dixii'tct of Ca/ifoni/d. 

Cifi/ (did (ouiitjj of San J^ranei^eo.^ .y.s. 

Cieorge H. Halpin. being tirst duly sworn, deposes and says that he 
is a citizen of the United States, above the age of tw'entv-one 3'ears, 
and a resident of the city and county of San P^rancisco. State of Cali- 
fornia. That he is the manager of the tirm of Hritton iSc Key. litho- 
graphers, whose place of business is situated at nundier ^>'lh Commer- 
cial street, in the city and county of San Francisco. State of California, 
and as such manager of such tirm is the custodian of and has the cus- 
tody and control of the books of said tirm, including the l)ook known 
as and called the "Stone Index Book", the "fJournal". and the 
"Ledger", containing the retpiisite entries of the business of said tirm 
during the year 1870. 

Afhant further makes oath and says that the docum(Mit which is 
hi'reunto aniH»xed and marked Exhil)it "A" and made a part of this 
affidavit, is a true and correct copy of the entri(»s which appt^ar in the 
'•Stone Index Book" of said tirm for the months of .lamiarv. Fel)ru- 
ary. March. Ajjril and May. in the yeai' 1S7H. which entries appear 
upon a single page of said book, and which ])age is not nuiubered. 

Alliant further makes oath and says that the document which is 
annexed hereto and marked Exhibit " B". and made a part of this 
affidavit, is a true and correct copy of the entries which appear in the 
book called the "Journal" of said firm during th(> year Is7<). at page 
41 of said book. 



2(>() GEOGRAPHICAL AND Ton xiKAI'H KAL INFORMATION 

Aditiiit fiu'tliiM- makes oatli and says tl)at tlu' (lociuiiont wliich is hore- 
uiito aiinox(Hl ami marked Kxhildt "C and made a ])art of this atti- 
davit, is a ti'ue and correct coi)y of the entries whicii ai)pear iii)on tlie 
^ ledii'ei-'' of said tirm durino- the year 1S70, at page 213, of said book. 

Ailiant further makes oath and says that, according' to his best 
information and belief, and based upon the entries which a])pear in 
the ditferent books of said tirm hereinabove mentioned, on(> thousand 
copies of a Map of the Cassiar Distiict. in P)ritish Columt)ia, were 
lithoyraphed by th(> said tirm of Hritton vSc Ivcy. at the re<|uest and 
oi'der of the British consul, at San Francisco, in the n^onth of Febru- 
ary, in th(> year ISTO. 

AlHant further makes oath and says that, according to his best 
information, and belief, the said tirm is not now in the possession of a 
copy of said map, and that the engraving upon the stone from which 
said maps were produced or lithographed, has long since been erased. 

Gko. H. Halpin. 

Subscribed and ssvorn to ])efore me this !^5th dav of ]\Iay, 1903. 

[seal] J. S. Manley. 

liiifcil States Coinhihsioncr for thr 
JVortJier/} Dlxtr'ct of Collfoi'nhi, at San Franeisco. 



Exhibit "A". 

1S7(). 

./(iiiiKiri/. 

out 167 Moore & Co. Bourbon 8ululs. 10300 Neck 5000 Sur 
3 colors. Br. 56 Mai)s of Kern River Hydraulic Mines, 

etc. ' 1000 

156 Mount iNIoriah pennason C/D 100 

111 :Meredith M. Co Share 1000 

69 The :Mackay 31. Co. Share 2000 

out 

in colors. ]\Iap of the Cassiar District 1000 

in colors out Map of Iviji'htening Creek 1000 

out The :\reredith Share 1000 

Large ]\lap of Santa Monica 3300 

Marrh 

Large Map of Santa ^Monica 
Meadow Valley share 
78 Merchant's Exciiange Circular 
116 INIelchers Successor's receipts 

75 " C/D 

220 " 1.2.3. Ex Blank 

6 ]\Iaps of Sutter Street Carey 
20 ]\lap of University of Cala. 
Piece Mariotts Aero-Plane Nar. Co. Share 
Merchant's Ex. ]5ank Kx on London 







5000 








1000 




Do 


ul)le 


2000 




Hat 


cap 


1000 
1000 








500 i 


sets, 






100 








100 




2d 


page 


500 
Do 





RELATIVE TO sOUTHEASTERM ALASKA. 267 

April 

1(14 -Mac.iiKlray 12.S4 Blank 2 Taks oOO sets. 

M ."Map Oliicv i^- Co. hackl. 3800 

+ 9 Muri>hy (iraiit Check I!('(l ill Don. Kelly Co. 5 1000 

+ 22 Kiiiety ( ireen" 1000 

27 Maps of Car,<()ns i*c Pinkertdii's .\<l(litinii 20 

Miller Lai )els 200 imp. 

^64 Do Kataiia Labels 2 labels 4000 eaek 

^laj) of San F. Directory (colons) 4200 

X 3o Mexican l'",xcli. Juan Soniellara iSc Co. Mazatlan '•>(){) 

'Slavouilnx Neck Laliels :;000 
Large ^lap of Cornstock Lode for News 

Letter 2 colors 11 200 

X 9 Mitchell G. c<i 8. M. Co. Share 1000 

Ex HI HIT "B." 41 

San Francisco February 187(3. 

Sundries Dr. to Mdse. 62550 

lo Harrison tt Co. 

Engraving Moniento and jirinting same 20 

213 British Consul 

Lith. maj) of Cassiar District 

" ".Cariboo 1000 250 

213 South St. Louis INIining C-o. 

Engraving C. of S. ]>nnting 1000 b. & no 75 

185 Selby Smelting and Lead Co. 

Lith. Silver Creek and binding same 7 

156 Leopard Alining Co. 

Lith. 2000 C of S. binding c'i no. 80 

143 Bank of Nevada Co. 

Printing 1000 checks stam])ed i)ai>er 

Binding and mmd)ering 3850 

142 Hideout and Smith 

Printing 400 Exchange. Bind & no. 10 

196 Owens and ^loore. 

Altering heading A printing 1500circ. and 1000 headings. 35 
189 Floo.l and O'Brien. 

Engraving letter head and printing 3 reams 35 

211 Sj)rucemont Mining Co. 

Engraving C. of S. printing 1000 h.<k no. 75 

213 

Exhibit "C." 

Di-. I'-hrenberg Copper M. Co. Cr. 

76 1876 

Fel)y To Mdse. 40 75_ October 1 By T. it L. 123 75 

British Con.'^ul 
76 1876 

Feby To :\[d.^e. 41 250 July 13 By Cash 92 250 

South St. LonisTT'Co (K. B. Noyes) 
76 76 

Fel)y To 3Idse. 41 75_ Aug. 9 By Cash 100 75 

Tb.pkinsan.l Haley 
7H '~ I87(i 

Feby To :\Idse. 42 5()_ March By Cash 

April •• " (14 79_ Mayo " •' 

Sept. To .Mdse. ll.-> ln__ Sept. 

Oct. 11 To Mdse. 127 375t) Oct. 30 

" 28 " " 1.37 25 

0250 
Nov. 17 To Mdse. 146 4250 Nov. 28 By Cash 

r>ec. 18 To Mdse. 160 2(i Dec. 28 By Cash 



47 


5(1 


6(> 


79 


111 


10 


136 


6250 








6250 






152 


4250 






14 


2(i 



MISCELLAXEOUS DOCUMENTS, ETC. 



Insti-iirtioitx (jl I'en. to l)i'. MnuJi nluiU . 

Dki'akt.mknt of State, 
W(ii<huigt(>n, D. C.^ Septemlx^r 8^ 1892. 
Thomas C. Mexdexhall, Esq.. 

Sitp^^r'ndi'ndi'ut off/n' Jjnihd Sff/frs 

(_'or/st and Geodetic Surcei/, Wdsli'nKjtoii . I). C 
Sir: 1 enclose herewith a commission !i})pointino" you the ("oniinis- 
sioner of the United States under the Convention conchuled in this 
city on July 22, 1892, providing for a joint delimitation of the exist- 
ing boundary line between the United States and her Britannic Majesty's 
possessions in North America, in respect to such portions of said l)ound- 
ary as may not in fact have been permanently marked in virtue of 
treaties heretofore concluded. 
Article 1 saj^s: 

That a coincident or joint survey (as may be found in practice mof?t convenient) 
shall be made of the territory adjacent to that partof the boundary line of the United 
States of America and the Dominion of Canada dividing the Territory of Alaska from 
the Province of British Columbia and the Northwest Territory of Canada, from the 
latitude of 54° 40' North to the point where the said boundary line encounters the 
141st degree of longitude westward from the meridian of Greenwich, by Connnission- 
ers to be appointed severally by the High Contracting Parties, with a view to the 
ascertainment of the facts and data necessary to the permanent delimitation of said 
])oundary line in accordance with the spirit and intent of the existing treaties in 
regard to it lietween (treat Britain and Russia and lietween tlie United States and 
Ivussia. 

By Article II: 

The High Contracting Parties agree that the (rovernment of the United States and 
of Her Britannic Majesty in behalf of the Donunion of Canada, shall, with as little 
delay as possible, appoint two Commissioners, one to be named by each ]mrty, to 
determine upon a method of more accurately marking the boundary line between 
the two countries in the waters of Passamaquoddy Bay in front of and adjacent to 
Eastport, in the State of ]\[aine, and to place buoys or lix such other Ixiundary 
marks as they may determine to be necessary. 

The Act providing for deficiencies, appro\ed May IP), ls;)"2. appro- 
priates the sum of Twenty-five thousand dollai's to be availal)le luitil 
expended, for the purpose of making the preliminary survey. It also 
provid(vs that the "whole (»xpense of this survey on the part of the 
United States shall not exceed the sum of sixty thousand dollars."* 

Congress has seen fit to place the money under the control of the 
Treasury Department. You will, therefore, have to consult the Sec- 
retary of the Treasury as to the mode of utilizing it. Moreover, it 
being especially assigned as an appropi'iation for the Coast and Geo- 
detic Survey, I presume you will tiiul no dilliculty in having the 
expen(litur(\s of it met through the Disbursing Oiliccr of the United 
States Coast and (jcodetic Survey. 
268 



MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS, ETC. 269 

Article I of the Convention })rovides that the ifspcetive Coniniis- 
.sioners shall meet at Ottawa within two months after the necessary 
appropriations shall have Ixh'h made, and shall proceed as soon as 
practicable thereafter to the active discharoe of their duties. They 
shall complete the survey and submit their final reports thereof within 
two years from the date of their tirst meetinu-. It is further provided 
that' 

The ComniiHsioners shall, so far as they may be able to a^ree, make a joint report 
to each of the two jrovernments, and they shall also rejKjrt, either jointly or severally, 
to each trovei'iunent on any points njion which they may be unable to agree. 

I deem it only necessary to invite your attention to these conven- 
tional provisions, feelino- every confidence that your intellio-ence and 
ability in prosecuting- such work will enalile you to successfully com- 
plete it to the siitisfaction of our Government and with the least possi- 
ble delay. 

I am. Sir. Your obedient servant, 

(Signed) John W. Foster. 

P^nclosures: Conuuission as above. Copies of treat}'. 



THE ALASKA BOUXDAIJY. BY T. C. MENDENHALL. 

[From tlu' Ailaiilic Montlily. Boston, April, 1S%.] 

* * * The conventi()n of 1^-2-i 1)etween the United States and 
Kussia, and that of 182.5 l)etween Kussia aiid Great Britain (in which 
are to be found the boundary-line articles quoted above), were the 
result of a determination on the part of the two Engdish-speaking 
nations to break down the Russian Emperors ukase of 1821. in which 
territory extending- as low as 51 - north latitude was claimed by Russia, 
as well as complete jurisdiction over nearly all water north of this 
line, thus threatening th(^ fishing and whaling interests and the carry- 
ing-trade of both nations. The limitation of Russian possessions 
to that part of the coast above 54^ 40' north latitude and the grant- 
ing of certain maritime privileges for a limited time were the princi- 
pal results sought after and accomplished, and unciuestionably little 
thought was given to the definition of a boundary line which traversed 
a region esteemed to be of little value, either present or prospective. 
In consequence of this indifference and the ap])arent absence of geo- 
graphical instinct in framing the treaty, we have an agreement through 
which it is now proposed to "drive a coach and six" in the interests 
of the ever aggressive and persistently exi)anding British Empire. 

It is therefore important for inteliigent Amei'icans to understand 
the weakness of the articles of agreement upon which our Alaska 
boundary claims are assumed to rest. They can best bo considered in 
the order of definition in the treaty. 

In the first paragraph is found the not uncommon but always 
unfortunate error of "' double definition", or rather, in this particular 
case, of attempting to fix an astronomical position by international 
treaty. It could not be known in 182.'). and. as a matter of fact, it is 
not now known, that the southernmost point of Princ(Mif Wales Island 
is on the parallel of ."i-l- 4<>' north latitude, for it is almost al)solutely 
certain not to be on this parallel. No harm comes from this, however. 

26626— AP 18 



270 MISOELLANP:<)rS DOCUMENTS, ETC. 

as in a sul)so(|iU'nt articlo (1\'.) the ])()ssil)ility of this detinitioii rosult- 
ino- ill a divided jurisdiction over the lower extremity of that island is 
prevented hy the provision that the whole island shall Iielono- to Russia 
(now to the L'nited states). The incident is quite worthy of note, 
however, as illustratino- the claim that the doiiihuint ida tras tJw 54° 
40' line. The prominence of this idea, indeed, in the minds of the 
several powers was so great as to <f\\Q rise to the second anihiouity in 
the lioundarv-line definition, which follows immediatelv upon the heels 
of the tirst. " 

The description says; "Commencinii' from the southernmost point" 
((ape Muzoii). etc., "the said line shtiii ascend to tlie nortii alon^- the 
channel called Portland Channel."' Now, an examination of the sketch- 
map of Alaska, shown above, will make it clear that, beginning with 
the point of departure as defined above, one must proceed to the east 
for about tifty miles in order to reach the entrance of Portland Chan- 
nel, or Portland Canal, as it is often called. On the absence of any- 
thing in the treaty in reference to this eastward line has been founded 
a claim that the use of the name •"Portland Channel" is an error, an 
oversight, and that the line was meant to ))e drawn l)y turning to tlie 
north as soon as i)Ossible, which would b«> after passing Cape Chacon, 
the eastermost of the two capes at the soutliern extremity of I'rince 
of Wales Island, and •'ascending to the north'' through Clarence 
Strait and Ikdmi Canal, and iinally intersecting the q\M\\ parallel of 
north latitude in Burroughs Bay. The effect of this would be to 
throw the wdiole of the great Kevilla-Gigedo Island, together with a 
large territory between that and Portland Canal (all of which has been 
almost universally recognized as belonging to Alaska), over to the 
British side. 

Preposterous as is this claim, it has for some years received official 
support at the hands of the Canadian authorities, who have so drawn 
the line on several of their official maps. It is found on a general map 
of the Dominion of Canada published by the Interior Department in 
1887, and it is drawn in the same way upon what purports to be a copy 
of an official Canadian map of 1884 (accompanying K^xecutive Docu- 
ment 146, Fiftieth Congress, second session), although an original, 
now before me, of same date and title, and with which the copy is 
almost identical in other respects, exhil)its the line as following the 
Portland Canal, in accord with the traditional claims of the Cnited 
States. In recent English dispatches it has l)een announced that new 
facts relating to the treaty have been discovered which grcnitly 
strengthen the later Canadian interpretation of this part of the line, 
but it is hardly to be believed that English diplomats will consider 
this lino in any other light than as affording excellent material with 
which to •'trade"*' in convention, or on which to "yield"" in arbitration. 

On entering the mouth of the Portland Channel, which is struck 
almost in the center l»y the .54- 40' line, we meet with another claim 
of comparatively recent date. Just to the north of what must be 
admitted to l)e the real entrance to this cliannel aiv two consid(M-able 
islands, Wales Island and Pearse Island. North of these is a narrow, 
dangerous chtmnel sei)arating them from the mainland, and joining 
Portland Canal above with the open sea. It is claimed that, admitting 
Portland Channel, as laid down on the maps, to be the real channel 
referred to in the treaty, this comparatively narrow passage is a part 
of it, and tln^ boundary line must be drawn through it so as to put 



MISCP:LLANE(»rs DOCl'MKNTS, ETC. 271 

Wales Jslaiul and Pcarso Island on the Canadian side. This ehiini is 
not reeoo-nized on the otiieial Canadian map refen-ed to above, dated 
1SS4, hut it i;? upon that of 18^7. It ean have hut little value, except 
when it couies to the "general .seranible" whieh is evidently bcintr 
prepared for. 

The Portland Canal presents another ditHculty in the fact that it 
does not aetually reach tiie "'.jtith degree of north hititude'", a.s seems 
to t>c implied in the language' of the treaty, and this has Iteen used as 
an argument to prove that Portland Channel was not really the chan- 
nel through which it was originally intended to draw the boundary 
line. But this canal comes to within a very short distance of 
the 56th parallel, probably falling short of it by not more than three 
or four miles, and possibly by not more than a fraction of a mile. 
The Salmon and Bear rivers debouch into this canal at its head, and 
the t)ed of either may represent the extension of the inlet to the 56th 
parallel. In any event, it is a matter of no great impoi'tance, as some 
sort of hiatus nuist necessarily exist in a line passing from the level of 
the sea to the summit of luountains. 

Altogether the most serious troul»le is to be anticipated in the 
interpretation of that part of the treaty which dehnes the line as it is 
to l)e drawn from the head of Portland Canal to the l-tlst meridian of 
west longitude near Mount St. Elias. 

In Article III. the language used is that "'from this last-mentioned 
point'' (where Portland Channel strikes the 56th degree of north lati- 
tude) "'the line of demarcation shall follow the sunnult of the moun- 
tains situated parallel to the coast as far as the point of intersection of 
the l-llst degree of west longitude," etc. But as there was, appar- 
ently, even then a doul)t as to the position if not the existence of such 
a range, the second paragraph of Article IX. was inserted, defining 
the distance of the line from the winding of the coast, in case the 
assumed mountain range might be found to run further from the shore 
than was then supposed. Although most interested in the other 
features of the treaty, it is evident that British diplomacy, with its 
accustomed shrewdness, was looking after secondaiy as well as pri- 
mai'v (juestions, and was by no means disposed to trust to the possible 
meanderings of any little-known range of mountains, even though 
drawn ui)on the ma}) by its own exi)I()rers. 

It was provided, therefore, that while the "summit of the mountains 
parallel to the coast" should furnish the boundary line whenever such 
line would be ten marine leagues, or less, from the coast, if it should 
appear in the future that said mountains carried their smumits to a 
greater distance inland, then the line was to be drawn "parallel to the 
winding of the coast." and so as never to "exceed the distance of ten 
marine* leagues therefrom." It is important to note that this article 
may be regarded as containing something stronger than a (|uasi-admis- 
sion on the part of (ireat Britain that the strip of territory conceded 
to Ix'long to Kussia should be in width ten mariiu> leagues from the 
coast line: it also im])lies that this is the ma.rliKiiin width to which she 
will consent, and that there is nothing in the treaty to prevent her 
making it one league or half a league, if, in the future, she is able to 
do so, and the inountaiiis pa>'<tll<-f to t}u- coattt do not stand in the way. 

When this treaty was made, and indeed until a comparatively recent 
date, the charts of the region prc^pared under the dii-ection of Van- 
ct)uver were the most reliable at hand. One of them (it is lik«dv to 



272 MISCELLANEOUS 1)( XTMENTS, V.TC. 

have Ih'oii tlic FiiMich edition) was clouhtlcss Ix'foro the authois of tlie 
articles detininjr the boundary line. xVll sliow a well-detined range of 
mountains, runnin<»' nearly paralUd to the coast line, and nMuoved 
from it hy a varying distance, somi^times as great as forty miU's or 
more. It is now known, howexer. and has l)een known for several 
years, that the very icgular and neatly drawn mountain ranges which 
Vancouver's nia]) (»xliil)its owe their origin to the imagination of his 
draughtsman more than to anything else; that is. as far as their form 
^oes. Indeed, it is prol)a]>ly just to say that they were intended only 
as conventional representation of the fact that mountains were seen in 
almost every dii-ection, and especially in looking from the coast toward 
the interior. A\'ithin the past few years many topographical maps 
have been executed, and many photogiaphs have l)een made of these 
mountains as viewed from the summits of some of those which are 
accessible. Very excellent views have ])een obtained from elevations 
of four thousand and live thousand feet, looking towards the interior 
and extending far l)eyoiid any claim of the Tnited States. These 
show a vast "sea of mountains'" in every direction, g-enerally increas- 
ing- in elevation as the distance from the coast increases. 

Seen from a distance or from the deck of a ship at sea. they might 
easily create the impression of a range or ranges "'parallel to the wind- 
ing of the coast ''. As a matter of fact, there is nothing of the kind, 
but only the most confused and irregular scattering of mountains over 
the whole territory, at least until the Fairweather range, south of 
Mount St. Elias, is reached. Of course it is quite possil)le to draw a 
series of lines from mountain suuuuit to mountain summit, which 
would form a line i)araliel to the coast, or any other assumed line, but 
no one can deny tliat the language of the treaty implies a range of 
sunuuits extending "in a direction parallel to the coast.'' As the 
mountains which actually exist cover the territory down to the water's 
edge, the logical application of the mountain-summit definition, if it is 
to be applied at all, is to draw the line from peak to peak along the 
seacoast, and this our friends on the other side have not hesitated to 
do. It is so drawn on the official ( anadian ma}) dated 18S7. and also 
by Dr. (t. M. Dawson, director of the Dominion (xeological Survey, 
on his map su])mitted to show proposed conventional boundary lines. 
Naturally, this line, in conunon with all recently drawn maps of the 
Canadian g-overnment, practically leaves little to us except the group 
of islands 13'ing off the mainland. While nominally allowing us a nar- 
row strip, which is ])erhaps not (juite all covered by high tides, it 
makes several short cuts which serve to l)reak the continuity of our 
coast line, and to give considerable seacoast to British Columl)ia. 

Against th(> mountain-summit theory, the contention of the United 
States is, or should be, that as it is uncpicstionably proved that no 
such range of mountains exists as was shown on the chai'ts of Van- 
couver, and as the high contracting parties evidently had in mind 
when they agreed to the treaty, it becomes necessary to fall back 
upon the alternative definition, which i)laces the line "parallel to the 
winding of the coast,"" and not more than ten marine leagues distant 
therefrom. It may be claimed that this was to have application only 
in localities where the range of "mountains jiarallel to the coast" was 
more than ten marine leagues from the coast, and that it vanishes 
when said range disappears. In reply it may be said that there are 
indications strongly pointing to tlu> actual existence of such a range 



MISC^KLLANKOUS DOCUMENTS, ETC. 278 

far hevoiul tlic hoiiiulaiv limit towards tlic interior: l)ut even if it he 
tinally Isiiown that no siu-h ranoe exists, either more or less than ten 
marine leauiies from the sea. the httcnf of the a*i'reen)ent ran he dis- 
tinctly proved: and in the iuipossihility of exeeutinti' one of its pro- 
visions, an alternative, s])eeially provided for the failure of that one. 
must l)e accepted. 

But as soon as we sut>u-est that l:oth the spirit and the letter of the 
treaty would l)e satistied l»y drawint;' tlu' line ten marine leatiues from 
the coast, we are met with some astounding- arj^umtMits as to what is 
meant hy the coast. A well-known Knulish authority has contended, 
in etl'ect. that the coast line from wliich this distance should he 
measured should l)e drawn tangent to, and so as to include, the islands 
lying- alonu' the coast. The effect of this would he practically to ex- 
ehide us from the mainland, and to throw valual)le ])arts of the islands 
thenisehes over to the Canadian side. In the face of the plain state- 
ment that the lini> is to he drawn "'parallel to the winding {sii,H<»<(tt><) 
of the coast." it is not l)elieved that this point can l)e seriously urged. 

Should it he found possihlc to ])rojeet a line satisfactory to lioth 
parties, from Dixon's Entrance, at some point of which it nnist begin, 
to the region of the Mount St. Elias Alps, thei'e will he no ditliculty 
in agreeing upon the ri'mainder of the boundary. From the point 
Avhere it strikes the l-tlst meridian west longitude it is to be extended 
along that meridian "as far as the Frozen Ocean." Since it is an 
astronomical line its ])osition can be ascertained as accurately as cir- 
cumstances require. 

In order to r«Muove a not unconuuon but erroneous impression that 
the Alaskan l)or.iidary line is now. and has been foi' some time, in a 
state of adjudication, it may be well to say that thus far nothing has 
been tlone exce})t to execute such surveys as have been thought desir- 
able and necessary for the construction of maps. l)y which the whole 
subject could lie ))roperly presented to a j*)int boundary-line connnis- 
sion whenever such should be appointed, and on which the location of 
the line could be definitely laid down if a mutual agreement sh(mld be 
reached. Such a survey was tii'st brought to the attention ot Con- 
gress in a message of President Grant in iST:^. It was not until 1889, 
however, that the work was begun by the I'nited States Coast and 
Geodetic Survey, which sent two inirties to the valley of the Yukon, 
in the vast inttMior of the territory, with instructions to establish 
camps, one on that ri\"er and the other on its l>ranch the Porcui)ine, 
both to l)e as near the 141st meridian as possil)le. These parties were 
to carry on a series of astronomical ()l>servations for the purpose of 
determining the location of the meridian, to execute such triangula- 
tions and toi)ographical sui veys as were necessary for its identification, 
and to establi.sh permanent monrments as nearly as might he upon the 
meridian line. 

They remained at their posts, under stress of weather and other 
unfavoral)le c-onditions. for two years, during whii-h their work was 
done in a manner (piite sutKcient for any demands ever likely to be 
made upon it. The two most important ])oints on tlu> boundary, wliere 
it inter ects the two great livers named above, were thus determin(»d. 
and a year or two later the j)osition of the l)oundary meridian in nda- 
tion to the sununit of Mount St. Flias was estal»lished. It is difhcidt 
to see what more will be re(|uii('d for a long time to come, as far as 



274 MISCKLLANEorS DorFMENrs, ETC. 

rolatos to this part of the l)oiin(larv line. In southern Alaska, where all 
the uiieertainties as to detinition of the boundarv line exist, peculiar 
and in a certain sense insuperable t)l)stacles are met with in the actual 
survey or ""runnino-" of a line in the ordinary sense. In nearly allof 
the ])roi)ose(l routes most of the line passes through a i-e^ion ])racti- 
cally inaccessil)l(>. or at least not accessible without tlu^ cx])en(liture of 
enormous sums of n.onev and many years of time, wholly (lispi-o|)or- 
tionate to the end to be oained. To atteujpt to make anythino' like a 
detailed to})Oi>raphical survey of the wide reo-ion covei'ed ))y the sev- 
eral claims, of sutKcient accuracy to satisfy the conditions, and to 
"run" a line whenever it should finally be located, would involve 
labor and (^xpense impossible to estimate in advance, but sui-e to be 
exti'aordinai'ily ^reat. 

In view of these facts, it was determined to make such a survey as 
would enable a l)oundarv-line conunission to fix upon any one of several 
''(■onventionar" lines which had )>een >.ug'oested already as satisfactory 
sul)stitutes for that of the treatv now generally admitted to l)e impos- 
si])le of realization. In fluly, 1892. an agreement was entered into 
between the United States and Great Britain for the execution of a 
joint or coincident survey of this region, for boundary-line purposes. 
It was agreed by the commissioners appointed to make this survey to 
carry out, in effect, the plan nuMitioned above. Astronomical stations 
wew to ])e established at the mouths of the principal riviM's which tiow 
across the lioundary line, namely, at the head of Hurroughs Bay, the 
mouths of the Stikiiu' and the Taku, and the head of Lynn C'anal. A 
series of triangles were to be run from th(>se up the river valleys, until a 
point bevond the proi)able or possil)le location of the boundarv was 
reached. Topographical sketches w-ere to be made and a good deal of 
photographic topogi'aphy was to be done, especially l)y the Canadian 
parties. This i)lan. which was successfully carried out. received the 
ap})r()val of the Department of State, and the repi'csentatives of the two 
go\ernments cooperatcnl in its execution. It is believed to hav(^ fur- 
nished all information. I)esid(\s what had been previously accumulated, 
necessai'y to a full discussion and a complete settlement of the con- 
troversy. 

One of the imi)ortant results of this work has been the accunudation 
of evidence, if indeed any were needed, of the impossibilitv of the 
"mountain-summit'"' line, and the consequent necessity of falling back 
upon a line at a measured distance from the coast. That this distance, 
in accordance^ with the spii'it and intent of the treaty of 1825. should 
be practically ten marine leagues is apparent from the treaty itself 
and fi'om contem])()raneous history. It was e\idently meant to con- 
vey, or rather to contirm. to Russia a "strip of tlu^ coast", complete 
and unbroken, from the })arallel of ^A 40' north latitude to Mount St. 
Klias. The word //VvV/v^ used in the treaty to describe this strip, and 
which becomes "line" in the English version, means much more than 
that, being- originally e<|uivalent to "border", "selvage", "fringe", 
or "list" of cloth, always standing for som(>thing of very definite 
width and contimiity. ('ontem})orary writers might be (juoted, show- 
ing a conunon belief among Knglishmen themselves that the treatj' 
accorded to Russia a \ery detinite and continuous strip of the main- 
land, which l)y cutting off direct access to the coast, "rendered the 
great interior of comparatively little value". 



MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS, ETC. 275 

111 coiK-lusion, tlic situation may Ix' suiiuntHl up as follows: 

Our purchase of Alaska from Kussia in ls<l7 included a strip of the 
eoast (//.svV'/v (h- cntr) extendiii<4- from north latitude iA -io' to the 
reoion of Mount St. Elias, This strip was thought to l)e separated 
from the British possessions by a range of mountains (then supposed 
to exist) parallel to the coast, or. in the case of these mountains being 
too riMiiote, by a line parallel to the windings {s!i,iioslfcx) of the coast, 
and nowhere greater than ten marine leagues from the same. As the 
advantage of an alternative line could hardly have been intended to 
acciue to one only of tin* contracting parties, and as Great Britain 
would benefit by every nearer approach of the alleged mountain range 
than ten marine leagues, it must t»e inferred that the spirit and intent 
of the treaty was to give Russia the full ten leagues wherever a range 
of mountains nearer to the coast than that did not exist. For more 
than fifty years there was, as far as is known, no claim on the part of 
(ireat Britain to any other than this simple interpretation of the treaty, 
and uj) to a very recent date all maps were drawn jjractically in accord 
with it. 

Above all. it is clear. t)oth from the language of the treaty and from 
contemporaneous history, that the strip of coast was intended to be 
(■out 1 minus from the parallel of .54- 4U' north latitude. The right of 
complete jurisdiction over this coast, exercised so long by Kussia with- 
out protest from Great Britain, became ours by purchase in 1807. 
Since that date the development of the northwest has shown the great 
value of this lisiere. Its existence has ])ecome especially disagreeable 
to Great Britain. I)ecause through its waterways and over its passes 
nmch of the emigration and material supplies for her northwestern 
territory must go. The ])ossession by us of the entire coast of North 
America north of 54- 40' to the Arctic Ocean is not in itself in har- 
mony with her desire or her policy. The Alaska boundary-line dis- 
pute otters an opportunity to break the continuity of our territorial 
jurisdiction, and by securing certain portions of the coast to herself 
greatly to diminish the value of the remaining detached fragments to 
us. The wisdom of this from the Downing Street standpoint cannot 
be questioned. Those of us who desire to assist in its accomplishment 
have only to urge the im})ortance of submitting ewvy controversy of 
this kind, no matter whether we are right or wrong, to the court of 
arbitration. Arbitration is compromise, especially when two gi-eat 
and nearly equally strong nations are engaged in it. 

No matter how much or how little a nation carries to an arl)itration. 
it is toleral)ly certain to l)ring something away. Once l>efore a board 
of arbitration, the English Government has only to set up and vigour- 
ously urge all of the claims referred to above, and moi-e that can easily 
be invented, and it is all but absolutely certain that, although by both 
tradition and equity we should decline to yield a foot of what we pur- 
chased in good faith from Kussia. and which has become douldy valu- 
able to us by settlement and exi)Ioration, our lisiere will l)c promptly 
broken into fragments, and. with nmch show of inq)artiality. divided 
between the two high contracting parties. 

It is to be regretted that our shai'e in r:'cent imi)()rtant events lia> 
tended to lead us toward this end rather than away from it. ^^'e have 
thrust ourselves into a controversy over u boundary line on another 
continent, in which we can have no interest, except perhaps that which 



276 MISCELLANEOrs DOCUMENTS, ETC. 

^rows out of u very foo-o-y and uii(jei-tuin sentiineiit. We luive assumed 
that a European power is about to "extend its system" to a part of 
the western continent, or that England is on the point of ""oppressing" 
the peo})le of a South American republic, oi- of •'controHinii- the des- 
tiny" of their o-oxernment. 

Ao"ainst this we have an active and aooressi\e protest, and have 
clearly intimated that if (xreat Britain does not submit this, boundary 
question to arbitration we shall make trouble. In so doino- we have 
once more ])ut ourselves exactly where far-siohted Enolish statesman- 
ship would have us. Under ordinary circumstances our attitude on 
this (|uestion would be considered as almost an offence, and the chan- 
nels of di})lomatic correspondence would not ho as clear and uninter- 
rupted as they now are. 

The truth is that Great Britain is meetino- our wishes in this matter 
with almost indecent haste, because the arbitration of the Alaska 
boundary line. l)y which she hopes and expects to acquire an open sea 
coast foi- her oreat northwest teri-itories. and to weaken us by luvakino- 
our exclusive jurisdiction north of o-i"- -iC. is enormously more im})()r- 
tant to her than anything- she is likely to g-ain or lose in South America. 

Having driven her to accept arbitration in this case, it will be impos- 
sible for us to refuse it in Alaska, and we shall tind ourselves again 
badly worsted by the diplomatic skill of a people who, as individuals, 
have develoi)ed intellectual activity, manliness, courage, unseltish devo- 
tion to duty, and general nol)ility of charaeter. elsewhere uneoualed 
in the world's history, but whose diplomatic policy as a nation is and 
long has been characterized by aggressiviMnvss.gi-eed. absolute inditl'er- 
ence to the rights of others, and a splendid facility in ignoi-ing every 
principle of justice or international law whenever conuuercial interests 
are at stake. 

T. C. Mendexhall. 



In-stn(cf!()ihs /'s.sHct/ !n ISiOf. hi/ J)r. T. ('. ^IciidvnlndK xnpti'infendent 
of the United St(d(x i'lxixt and (xcodrtlr Strri'ei/. 

Wasiiinotox, I). C, JLo: ^ht^ 189^. 
J. F. Pratt, 

^l^/stant (\ <(' (r. Sufecy, •Sctt/r. lIT/.s//. 

Sir: As you are already aware from })revious instructions and from 
ver))al conference you will again be assigned to duty in Alaska in 
connection with the Boundary survey. 

On the recei])t of these instructions you will ])lease arrange to pro- 
ceed by the Steamer "Hassler", which will furnish transjiortation to 
and from the field for your party and outfit and which will sail from 
Seattle about April 27 to Lynn Canal. wluM-e you will execute the 
triangulation and topographical reconnaisance of the Chilkat and 
Taiya hdets to the 10 marine league limit. You will also establish an 
astronomical station on the west side of Chilkat Inlet and connect it 
V»y triangulation with the old station on Pyramid island. The astron- 
omer attached to your jiarty will attend to the astronomical and 
magnetic observations, and on each return of the "'llassler" which 
will carrv chronometers to and fro l)etween vour astronomical station 



MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS, ETC. 277 

and that at Sitka, will make coiiiparisoii of the carried rin-oiionictcr.s 
with thost' of your station. The traveling- astronomer, in eharj^e of 
the carritMl chronometers will indei)endently make the same compar- 
isons, and in case of disaofeement a repetition by both will be neces- 
sary. Time observations should be made as frecjuently as })ossible so 
that a o'ood rate for tlu^ station chronometers may be obtained. 

Assistant E. F. Dickins w\\\ on the completion of his work on the 
Unuk Kiver transfer his party to the Chilkat and render such assist- 
ance to your party as may be necessary'. 

Sub Assistant F. A. Youni;', Aid J. F. Hayford and Temijorary Aid 
A. L. Baldwin and a Recorder will b/ assioned to your ])arty. Mr. 
Hayford Ix'ino- the astronomer who will be left in charge of the 
astronomical station. The traveling astronomer Mr. .1. Page for con- 
venience will be considered as attached to Assistant Morse's ])arty. but 
in case of sickness or disability of Mr. Hayford. will relieve the hitter 
at your astronomical station. Messrs Young. Hayford and Baldwin 
will report to you at Seattle in time for the sailing of the '* Hasslei*", 
and have each l)pen instructed to ])urchase round trip tickets from 
^\'ashington good. for eight months and to render the accounts for tlu'ir 
traveling expenses to you for settlement. Their compensation and 
that of your recorder will be as follows: 

F. A. Yoiintr %>! , -JOO per annum 

.1. F. Hayford V)00 per annum 

A. L. Halilwin HO per month 

Keconler <>() per month 

and eai'h will also receive actual sul>sist micl^ and tr.ucling expenses. 

Prior tf) taking the tield, you will as heretofore arranged procure 
for the Alaska parties the requisite numb?')- of canoes and see that 
they are properly shipped to their respective destinations. 

The Hydrographic Inspector will furnish a boat and outtit and a 
steam launch for the use of your party. 

Parties undei' the charge of Messrs ,J. A. Flemer and H. 1*. KitttM' 
will be oi)eratiiig in the mountain regions adjoining the ("hilkat and 
Taiya Inlets and will use your camps as a base of supplies. &c.. and 
you will please cooperate with them in every way possible without 
interfering with the progress of your own work. It is also prol)al)le 
that Assistant McCJrath after comjileting the work assigned to him in 
the vicinity of Yakutat Bay will reinforce your party and assist in the 
completion of your survey. 

It will be borne in mind that the triangulation to th(> In marine 
league limit and the topographical reconnaissance of the up})er portions 
of the inlets are of th(^ first im])ortance and if it is found necessary to 
leave anv part of the work untinished it should l>e the topography of 
the lower portions. 

At the close of the Reason youi' party and outtit will be carriinl to 
Seattle by the Steamer "Hassler". and Messrs Young. Hayford and 
Baldwin will then proceed to Washington and your Recorder to San 
Francisco. 

Th(>se instructions will cover all necessary expcMise of trav(d and 
transportation incurred in their execution. 
Respectfully, yours. 

T. C. Mkndemiall. St/^h/-/>ift /i(h/tf. 



"278 miscellaneous documents, etc. 

United States Coast and Geodetic Survey, 

^Vas],•nHJf,,|,, I), a, Mar. 2M, 1891^. 
Fremont Morse, 

Axsi stunt C. c6 G. Snrri-ij^ Sun F'nnicl.sro^ Col. 

Sir: Diirino- the coniiiio- .season you will ao-ain he assioned to duty 
as astronomer in connection with the Alaska Boundary Survey and on 
recei})t of these instructions you will ])lease arrange to proceed to 
Sitka, at such time as the Steamei' '"Patterson" may l>e ready to sail. 
pr()l)al)ly about Ai)ril 'list. 

Your duties at Sitka will be the same as durino' last year and chro- 
nometers will 1)0 carried l)y the Steamer "Hassler" l)etween 3'our 
station and one to be estal)lished on the Chilkat Inlet by Assistant 
Pratt. Mr. J. Pag"e will attend to the chronometers on the ** Hassler"' 
and will be considered as a member of your jmrty. He will at each 
station make the comparison of its chronometers with those of the 
vessel and the station astronomer will do the same independently, and 
in case of disao-reement the comparison will Ije repeated 1)\- both. 

Incase of the sickness or disaV)ility of either astronomer. ^Ir. Pag-e 
will take his place and the care of the Hassler chronometers will then 
devolve upon one of the otticersof that ship. 

Mr. Page's compensation will be ^(iU per month and subsistence at 
the rate of $1.()0 per day and his traveling- expenses to and from the 
Held will be paid. He will purchase here a round triy) ticket to San 
Francisco, and will render to you all accounts for expenditures incurred 
under his instructions. 

^Magnetic ol)servations will again l)e made at Sitka and the instru- 
ments will then be forwarded to the Chilkat static)!!. th(M"e l)eing but 
one set of instruments availal)le. 

At the close of the season you will without further instructions pro- 
ceed to San Francisco, transportation being furnished you by the 
"Patterson"" or '" Hassler" as the case may be. 

These instructions will cover all necessary expenses of travel and 
transportation incurred in their execution. 
Respectfully, yours. 

T. C. Mendeniiall, Sniierintciident. 



United States Coast and Geodetic Survey. 

W^isJuiHjtnn, T). a, Mar. md. 189'^. 
E. F. DicKiNS, 

Assistant C. t5 G. Siu'iyy, San Fi'iinvisco, CaJ. 

Sir: As you have already ]»een informed you will be again assigned 
to duty in Alaska in connection with the Boundary Survey and you 
will ])l('ase ari-angc for the contiiuiation of the reconnaissance of the 
Unuk Ki\('r from the j)oint reached by you last yc^ar to the lo marine 
league limit. 

On the com})letion of this work you will be conveyed by the Steamer 
Hassler from I5urroughs Bay to the Chilkat Inlet, where a'ou will ren- 
der such assistanc(^ to the ])arty of Assistant Pratt as may ))e neces- 
sary. The funds for the Boundary Survey l)eing limited it will be 
necessary to pi'actice the most rigid economy, and it will be well to con- 
sider the advisa])ility of discharging most of your men on the comple- 
tion of the I'mdv work, their ex[)enses to their hotnes l>eing of course 



'miscellaneous documents, etc. 279 

paid. As the triiioiionictrical sui'vcv of the Chilkat and Taiya Inlets 
to the !<• niai'iiu' leaiiue limit is of the greatest iiiiportaiK-c. the topo- 
o-raphy (of the lower portions at least) l>eiii«i- secoiularv. you will tirst 
assist in the trianouhitioii. and for this purpose your full party will 
prol)al)ly not l)e re([uired. 

It will 1)0 neeessary to arrang-e in advance with the commanding 
officer of the Steamer '* Hassh^r " as to the time of calling for you at 
Burroughs Hay. and in case of failure to connect at that time a second 
trip may he made later unless in your judgment it is more economical 
to transport your reduced jvarty and outtit hy the mail steamer from 
Loring to Sitka and thence by the '* Hassler" to Chilkat. In forming 
3'our judgment on this matter the cost of the Ilassler's trij) need not 
be takcMi into account, as she will have some work to do in the vicinity, 
which can as w(dl l»e done at that time as any other. 

Transportation to the tield will be furni>hed for your i)arty and out- 
fit by the Steamer *' Patterson ", which will sail from San Francisco 
about April 21st, ))ut you are authorized to proceed by rail to Port 
Townsend and join the ship at that point. ]\Ir. S. B. Tinsley will l»e 
assigned to your party as "'Temporary Aid", and will report to you 
at Port Townsend and accompany you on board the *' Patterson". His 
compensation will be at the rate of ^Ho.oo pei' month and actual sub- 
sistence and traveling ex})enses. 

The Hydrographic Inspector will furnish a whale l)oat and outfit for 
the use of your party and Assistant Pratt will attend to the purchase 
of such canoes as may ))e required. 

At the close of the season you will without further instructions 
return to San Francisco, the Steamer "Patterson" or "Hassler" as 
the case uiay be. furnishing .the transportation. 

Mr. Tinsley having a round trip ticket between \\ic^hington and 
Port Townsend will t>e landed at the latter point and will proceed to 
^Vashington. I). ('. 

These iiixtructions will cover all necessary expenses of travel and 
transportation incurred in their execution, 
liespectfully. yours. 

T. C. Mendenhall, Suptrhitendeiit. 



rMTED States Coast and Geodetic Survey. 

Wdshhuftov, D: C, 2far. 2Jfth. ISOIt. 

J. E. Mc(iKATH. 

Ass/'.s/i/)i/ C. lb G. Snrrei/^ WaxJiingtoii, J). C. 

Sir: You are hereby assigned to the charge of one of the parties to 
be employed this season upon the survey of the boundary of South 
Eastern Alaska, and will please arrange to i)roceed to San Francisco 
in time to ship your outfit by the Steamer ** Patterson", which will 
sail about April iJlst. You will then ]iroceed l)y rail to Port Town- 
send, comjdete tin* orgtmi/ation of your party and join the Piitterson 
on hei" arrival there. 

Dr. II. W . Edmonds will be assigned to your })arty and will tie 
instiucted to rej)ort to you on your arrival at San Franciseo and to 
join the ship at that j^oint. His compensatiiMi will be at the same rate 
as last year, viz: — >>1(m» per month and actual sul)sistencc and travid- 



280 MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS, ETC. 

ino- ('X])('MS('s. aiul his ussionnicnts will take eti'oct fi'oni the date of his 
rcportiiiy' to yoii at Saii Francisco. 

The work entrusted to you will he the contiiuiation of the sui'vey 
from the South end of the Mal.ispina Base to the delta of the Tahtse 
River. You will l)e landed by the Patterson at Yakutat Bay and will 
then proceed to that part of the coast nearest to Mt. St. Elias wdiere 
you will measure another base line for the purpose of determinin>4- 
accurately the distani-e of the mountain from the coast line. You will 
at the same time secure all possil)le additional o'eooraphical informa- 
tion particulai-ly as to the distance and elevations of other })eaks and 
will then rui! a traxerse line to connect the new base with the one at 
]\lalaspina. incidentally tra^•in^• the intervenino- shore line. 

The Steamcn- '" Patterson" will call for you at Yakutat at such tinu^ 
as you may have agreed upon witl) her commanding- t)tiicer and will 
then transport yourself and party to the head of Lynn Canal where 
you will render such assistance to the parties there at work as may be 
necessary to ensure the completion of that surv(\\'. 

On your way to Yakutat, or, if circumstances are not then favor- 
able, on your return therefrom, you will if practicable laud at Lituya 
Bay where you will measure another base and det(>rmine the elevations 
and distances from the c():ist of tlu> princi|)al mountain peaks in that 
region. As this Lituya Bay work will only occupy a short time, the 
Steamer will await its coiupletion and your I'eturn on board. 

After completing this work and that in the vicinity of 'Sit. St. Elias 
and Yakutat Bav you w^ill consider the advisa})ilitv of reducing your 
party by the discharge of such hands as will not be required for the 
work in Lynn Canal. Their traveling expenses by mail steaiuer to 
the point where engaged will of course have to l)e paid. 

At the close of the season you will proceed t)y the Steamer '"Patter- 
son""' to Port Townsend and thence l)v rail ( Vi(/ San Fi'ancisco if nec- 
essaiy) to Washington. 

Dr. Edmonds and such renr.iiiung members of your party as are 
engaged at San Francisco will coutinue on board the '"Patterson" 
until her arrival at that port, and the others will be discharged at Port 
Townsend. 

You will for the sake of economy purchase at ^\ ashington a round 
tri}) ticlvct to San F'rancisco, good for S or !» months. 

'rhes(^ instructions will cover all necessary expenses of travel and 
transportation incurred in their execution. 
Kespectf ul ly . yours, 

T. C. MeNDENHALL, Siif), linfi n<J<'iif. 



United States Coast and (teodetic Survey. 

Waah'nujton, I). C., Apl. 0. ISO./,. 
J. A, Fle:\iek, 

Axxtsfiuif (\ (.(? (t. iSif/'n/}/^ W(fs/a'/t</t<>/i, I). (J. 
Sir: On rcn-eipt of these instructions you will jdease arrange to 
proceed to Alaska iind mak(^ a topographical reconnaissance of the 
country to the jiorthward and eastward of Taiya Inlet and River to the 
10 marine league limit. 

You will pui'chase a I'ound trip ticket to Seattle, good for !» months, 
and })roceed to that point in timt^ to complete your arrangiMuents and 
join the Steamei" "Ilasslei'" which sails for Alaska about April liTth, 



MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS, ETC. 281 

and which will t'uniish transpoi-tiitioii for yoursdt'. party and outtit to 
Chilkat Inlet 'I'lic work will he of the sanu* i^cncial charactt'i as that 
exet'utcd hv you last year, and you will olvc special attention to the 
skotchinii' and niapi)inL:- of the mountain peaks and ranues. if such 
exist, and locat(> them as accui'ately as the means and time at your dis- 
posal will permit. 

The party of Assistant Pratt will l)e enwayed in the survey of the 
Chilkat Iidetand river to the l)oundary, and his camps may be used l)v 
you as a l)ase of operations when practicahle. You will confer with 
him from time to time, as occasion otiers, relative to the progress of 
the work and the time of closino- tield operations, and on the latter 
point you will l)e t;"ui(led strictly 1)V his decision. 

At the close of the season you will retuiri by the SteanuM- '* Hassler"' 
or '■ Patterson" to Seattle or Port Townsend where you will discharge 
youi' party and without further instructions proceed to Washinoton, 
i). C. These instructions will cover all necessary expenses of travel 
and transportation incurred in their execution. 

Your estimates for the work have l)een duly approved in the sum of 
$1500 and an allotment of that amount has been placed to your credit. 
Respectfully, yours. 

T. C. Mendenhall, Stiperhdeiuhnt. 



I'xiTED States Coast and Geodetic Survey. 

^YfLshin<|ton, D. C, Ajjl. 0th, 180 1^. 
Mr. Ho:mek P. Kittek. 

U. /S. Coast db Geodetic Sxrvcf/. Wns/iliK/tdn. J). ('. 

Sir: On recei])t of these iirstructions you will please ari'ange to |)ro- 
ceed to Alaska and make a t()i)ograpliical reconnaissance of the country 
to the northward and westward of the Chilkat Inlet and River to the 
10 marine leagui' limit. 

You will purchase a round trip ticket to Seattle good for H months, 
and proceed to that point in time to join the Steamer " Hassler" which 
sails for Alaska about April 27th and which will furnish transportation 
for yours(df. party and outtit to Chilkat Inlet. 

The work Avill be of tlu^ same general character as that executinl by 
you last year at llolkham Bay. You will give special attention to the 
sketching' and mai)ping of the mountain peaks and ranges, if such 
exist, and locate them as accurately as the means and time at youi" dis- 
posal will permit. The party of Assistant Pratt will be engaged on 
the survey of the Chilkat Inlet and River to the boundary, and his 
camps may be used by you as a l)ase of operations when practicable. 
You will confer with him from time to time as occasion otters relati\'e 
to the progress of the work and the time of dosing- tield operations 
and on the latter ])oint you will be guided strictly by his decision. 

At the close of the season you will return by the Steamer ** Hassler" 
or "Patterson'" to Seattle or Port Townsend. where you will discharge 
your party and without fuither instructions proceed to Washington. 
D. C. These instructions will cox (M- all necessary expenses of traxtd 
and transportation incurred in their execution. 

Your estimates for the work have been ap])ro\ed in the sum of 'Sl.'iOi) 
and iin allotment of that amount has Ikhmi placed to your crcnlit. 

Respectfully yours 
, T. C. Mendenhall Siqi, rhitcndott 



282 MISCELLANEOUS DOCTMENTS, ETC. 

Stati'liunt of Rer. Williitin Dnncdii. 

At tlie iH"(iiiost of the Stiite Dcpartiiiciit of tljc rnited States 1 the 
undersio'iied make the following statement this 2<>th day of May 1903 
at Metlakahtia, Alaska. I was at Fort Simpson British Columbia in 
the year IS.")? and remained in the Fort over three years witii the 
Ofhcers of the Hudson's Bav Company from whom I learnt that for 
the privilege of trading with the natives of Alaska, north of Portland 
Inlet, their Company })aid a yearly rent to the Kussian (iovernment. 

In the year 1862 I founded the settlement of ]\Ietlakahtla. about 17 
miles South of Fort Sim])Son, and on the 1th -luly lsr>;] I was 
appointed a .Justice of the Peaee for the district which othce I tilled 
for over 20 years. During all that tiiue 1 was under the impression 
that British jurisdiction did not extend north of Portland Inlet so that 
if a criminal succeeded in getting that far, he was alloAved to escape. 

It was in the years from 1,S65 to l>s6s (I think) British Naval Otiieers 
were engaged in a surveying ship all around the Northern waters of 
British Columlua. They visited Metlakahtia frequently Init w^e never 
heard that thev extended their labors ])evond or north of Portland 
Inlet. 

William Duncan, 

Z\ S. Coiiiiiiisi^hmei'. 



Dej)os!ti(>)i of Tltcoiloi'c Poindt'.der. 

United States of America, Northern Dis- | 

TRicT OF California, City and County of >.w. 

San Francisco. ) 

Theodore Poindexter, l)eing first duly sworn, deposes and says that 
he is a citizen of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years. 
That he resides in the City and County of San Francisco, State and 
Northern District of California. That he is the son of the late Francis 
Poindexter, who was a Justice of the Peace at Chilkat, Alaska, during 
the year ISST and for some years thereafter. That said Francis H. 
Poindexter died in the City of Los Angeles, in the State and Southern 
District of California about the month of October, in the year lS*jy. 

Theodore F^oindexter. 

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 3rd dav of June 
A. D. 1903. 

[seal] J. S. Manley. 

United States Connnl^xioner 
For the Northern District <f V<diforiiia^ at Sun Francheo. 



EXTRACT FROM WHEATON S INTERNATIONAL LAW. W. 15. LAWRENCE, 

BOSTON. 1855. 

[Pages 221:-225.J Great Britain had also formally protested against 
the claims and principles set forth in the Russian ukase of 1821, imme- 
diately on its pronudgation, and subse(juently at the Congress of 
Verona. The controversy, as between the British and Russian gov- 
ernments, was tinally closed by a convention signed at Petersburg. 



MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS, ETC. 283 

Fel)ruaiT l«'>-:28. 1<S2.'>. which also established a perniaiiciit houiidary 
})et\veeii tht^ ((M-ritorics respecti\'ely claimed l)y them on the continent 
and islands of North-western America. 

This treat}^ contained the following stipulations: 

Akt. L It is a<:ree(l that tlie respective sniijeits of the iii<rh (•<pntractin<r parties 
shall not lie troul)le<l or molested in any part of the ocean coninionly calleil the 
Pacific Ocean, either in navigating the same, in fishing therein, or in landing at sui-h 
part of the coast as shall not have been already occupied, in order to trade with the 
natives, under the restrictions and conditions specified in the following articles: 

Art. 2. In order to prevent the right of navigating and lishing, exercised ujion the 
ocean by the subjects of the high contracting parties, from becoming the i>retext for 
an illicit commerce, it is agreeil that the subjects of his Uritannic >Iajesty shall not 
land at any place where there may 1)e a Russian establishment, without the ]iermis- 
sion of the governor or (•ommandant; and, on the other hand, that Russian subjtects 
shall not land, without permission, at any British establishment on the north-west 
coast. 

Hv the ord and 4th articles it Avas agreed that "the line of demarca- 
tion between the possessions of the high contracting parties upon the 
coast of the continent and the islands of America to the north-west," 
shoidd be drawn from the southernmost point of Prince of Wales's 
island, in latitude .54 degrees 4o minutes eastward, to the great inlet in 
tlie continent called Portland Channel, and along th(» middle of that 
inlet to the .5*)th degree of latitude, whence it should follow the summit 
of the mountains bordering the coast, within ten leagues northwestward, 
to Mount St. Elias. and thence north, in the course of the 141st meridian 
west from Greenwich, to the frozen ocean, •"which line shall form the 
limit between the Russian and the British possessions in the continent 
of America to the noi'thwest.** 



extract i'kom a proclamation of george iii. (1763) 
By the King. 

A PROCLAMATION. 

George R. 

A\'hereas we have taken into our roval consideration the extensive 
and valualtle acqiusitions in America, secured to our crown by the 
late dehnitix'e treaty of peace concluded at Paris the loth day of Feb- 
ruary last: and being desirous that all our loving subjects, as well of 
our kingdoms as of our colonies in America, may avail themselves, 
with all convenient speed, of the great benefits and advantages which 
must accrue therefrom to their connnerce, manufactures, and naviga- 
tion: we have thought fit, with th(> advice of our privy council, to issue 
this our royal proclamation, hereby to publish and declaiv to all our 
loving sid)jects, that we have, with the advice of our said privy coim- 
cil, granted our letters patent under our great seal of Great Britain, 
to erect, within the countries and islands ceded and confirmed to us ])y 
the Slid treaty, four distinct and separate governments, stiled and 
called bv the names of Quebec. East Florida, West Florida, and 
Grenada, and limited and bounded as follows, viz: 

* ***** * 

Fourthly, The government of (irenada. comprehending the island of 
that name together with the Grenadines, and the islands of Dominico. 
8t. \ iiicent. and Tolxiuo. 



284 MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMKNTS, ETC. 

And to the end tliat tlic open ;iiul free tishcry ot" our subjects may he 
extended to. and carried on u{)oii tlie coast of Labrador and tlie adja- 
cent islands, we liave thought tit. with the advice of our said ])rivv 
council, to put all that coast, from the river St. flohn's to Hudson's 
Streii;hts. toj^'ether with the islands of Anticosti and Madelaint'. and 
all other smaller islands lying- upon the said coast, luider the care and 
inspection of our oovernor of Newfoundland. 



EXTRACT FROM HKITISH STATUTE. IItH (iEOHCiE III, CIlAl'TEU S3 (1774) 

J^e it enacted by the King's most excellent Majesty, by and with the 
advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and conmions, 
in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, 
That all the territories, islands, and countries in Nortli Anierica^ belong- 
ing to the crown of (rredt Br'dd'in. '■ * '^ and also all such terri- 
tories, islands, and countries, which have since the tenth of FchnKini. 
one thousand seven hundred and sixty-three, been made pai't of the 
government of Xeii'f<niit(U<iiul^ be, and they are herel)y, during his 
Alajesty's pleasure, annexed to. and made j^art and parcel of the prov- 
ince of Qach(.c\ as created and established by the said royal proclama- 
tion of the seventh of (h-tohcr, one thousand seven hundred and 
sixtv-three. 



EXTRACT FROM BRITISH STATUTE, 41tTH (iEORGE III. CHARTER 27 (LSOjl) 

XIV, 'And U' liereas His Majesty l)v His Proclamation of the Seventh 
Day of Odohii' One thousand seven hundred and sixty-three, was 
pleased to declare that he had put the Coast of Laln'ador from the 
Rirci' Sd'tnf Jolni to Jftidsoii.s St)-<'!</]ifs. with the Islands of A/)f/<o.sff\ 
and 2fadt'l(i!)u\ and all other smaller Islands lying on the said Coast, 
under the Care and Inspection of the Governor of XeirfoundhouJ: And 
AMiereas b}'^ an Act passed in the Fourteenth Year of the Reign of 
His present Majesty, intituled An Act for mal'ing more effectual Pro- 
vtxlon for the Governiitent of the Pror'tnce of Quebec in North 
America, all such Territories, Islands and Countries, as since the 
Tenth Day of Fehrnnry One thousand seven hundred and sixty three 
had been Fart of the Government of NevfnindJand^ were, during 
His Majesty's Fleasure, annexed to and made Fart of the Province 
of Quebec^ as created by the said Froelamation: And Whereas in 
pursuance of an Act passed in the Thirt3'-tirst Year of His pres- 
ent Majesty's Reign, intituled, ^1;^ Act to Repeal certain Parts 
of an Act, ^?«.v.v(^<^ in the P\mrteenth Year of His Majesty's Beign, 
intituledy ''An Act for inaMng more efectual Prot^ision for the Gov- 
ernnient of the Province f^/" Quebec, //; North America,' and to make 
fiii-fJier IVovision for the Government (f the mid Province^ the said 
Province of Quehec was divided into Two Provinces of T'j^per and 
Loivcr Canada, the latter including the Parts of the Coast of L(d>rador 
and the said Islands so formerly aiuiexed to the GoviM'nment of Xeio- 
foiiiidland: And Whereas it is exi)edient that the said Coast of Lah- 
rador. and the adjacent Islands (except the Islands of 21adelaiji<) should 
be reannexed to the Government of A^eafoandland;'" Be it therefore 
enacted, That such Parts of the Coast of Labrador from the Rive 
S lint John to lludsonh Streights, and the said Island of Anticost 



MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS, ETC. 285 

iuul nil other sniallor Isliiiids so annexed to the Government of Xmo- 
fintiiilhinil l)v the said Proclamation of the Seventh Day of Octofn'V 
One thousand seven hundred and sixty three, (exeept the said Islands 
of Ma(lclaint\) shall be separated from the said (Jovernment oi Lower 
Qtnadii^ and be ao'ain reannexed to the Govermuent of Xcwfoandland; 
any Thing- in the said Act passed in the Thirty-tirst Year of His present 
Majesty's Keiun, or any other Act, to the contrary notwithstanding. 
XV. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the said 
Supreme Court of Judicature^ of the Island of Xi^wfoiindldial to hold 
Plea of all Crimes and Misdemeanors committed, and of all Suits and 
Complaints of a Civil Nature arisino- within such Parts of the Coast of 
Lahi'dilor from the River S'ouit Jo/ik to IIu</s<i)i''x Straights, and the 
said Island of Ant/coKfi., and all other smaller Islands so reannexed to 
the (xoverninent of Neirf(mn<Uaiid, or on the Islands, Seas, and Har- 
bours, to which Ships and Vessels repair from the Parts of the Coast 
of Lahrador and the Island and Islands so re-annexed to the Govern- 
ment of JWnrfoundhind for carrying- on the Fishery, in the same 
Manner as the said Supreme Court holds Plea of Crimes and Misde- 
meanors committed, and of Suits and Complaints of a Civil Nature 
arising- within the Island of Xtnrfoiindland^ and on the Islands and 
Seas aforesaid, and on the Banks of Xeiofoundlnnd. 



EXTRACT FROM BRITISH STATUTE, 6tH GEORGE IV., CHAPTER 59 (1825) 

' IX. And Whereas under and by virtue of a certain Act passed in 
the Forty ninth Year of the Keign of His late Majesty King George 
the Third, intituled ^1/^ Act for <^d(d)lii<h!ng Courts of Judicature in 
the hland of Xevfoundhmd^ und in the Islands adjacent; and for 
reannexing Part of Labrador and tlie Islands lying on the said Coasts 
to the Government of Newfoundland; and of the Act passed in the 
Fifth Year of the Reign of His present Majesty, intituled An Act for 
tJie letter Administration of Justice in Newfoundland, and for other 
purposes^ the Coast cf Lahrador^ from the River Saint John to Hud- 
son k Streights, and the Island of Anticosti^' and all the Islands adjacent 
to the said Coast, except the Islands of Mad<-lain<\ are annexed to and 
form Part of the Government of Xeirfoundland ; and it is expedient 
that certain Parts of the said Coast of Lahrador should l)e reannexed 
to and form Part of the Province of Ijmier Canada;'' Be it therefore 
enacted. That so much of the said Coast as lies to the westward of a 
Line to be drawn due North and South from the Bay or Harbour of 
Ann' S(dJon, inclusive, as far as the Fift\' second Degree of North 
Latitude, with the Island of Anticosti, ancl all other Islands adjacent 
to such Parts as last aforesaid, of the Coast of L(/l>/'ador, shall l)e and 
the same are hereby re-annexed to and luade a Part of the said Province 
of Lou'r/- Canada^ and shall henceforward be sul)ject to the Laws of 
the said Province, and to none other; and so much of thi^ said recited 
Acts passed in the Forty ninth Year of the Reign of His late Majesty 
King George the Third, and in the Fifth Year of the Reign of His 
present Majesty, as relates to such Parts of the (^oast of L(d>rador as 
last aforesaid, and the said Island of Anticosti," and other adjacent 
Islands, shall lie and the same is hereby repealed. 

« Sic. 
26626— AP 19 



286 LOCATION OF MINING DISTRICTS IN SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA. 

The Diirctoi' of the Vnlted States GcoJoijicnJ Survey to the Secretary 

of State. 

Departmtnt of the Interior 
United States Geological Survey 

Wa.sJiliigtoii, I). 6'., 'June J^^ ^OJ. 
The flonorable The Secretary of State. 

Sir: In {U'cordaiice with your i'0([UO.st. 1 send herewith u statement 
prepared by Alfred H. Brooivs. (ieologist in charge of (xeolooic Work 
in Alaska, of the mines located and now in operation in that part of 
the Territory of Alaska known as the h'.siere. 
Yours with respeet, 

Chas. D. Walcott, Director. 



Statement as to Location of ^Lining Districts in Southeaster 7 1 Alaska 

Department of the Interior 
United States Geological Suraey 

Washington, D. ^'., June ^, ''03. 
Hon. Chas. D. Walcott, Director, JJ. S. Geological Survey. 

Sir: In accordance with your request, I have the honor to submit 
herewith a brief statement of the mines now being operatinl in the 
lisiere of the territoiy of Alaska. Th(^ following list of mining dis- 
tricts is arranged geographically, beginning at the north. 

porcupine district. 



lis district comprises several creeks which are tri])utarv from the 
h to the Klaheela (Klehini) River, 12 miles above its junction with 



Thi 

south _ ^ - / - 7 J 

the Chilkat. These creeks carry placer gold and extensive exploita- 
tion and development has been going on in the past -i j'ears. The 
district is 22 miles distant from tidewater, at the head of Pyramid 
Harl)or, a branch of Lvnn Canal. 



BERNERS BAY DISTRICT. 

Under this heading is grouped a luunber of important gold and sil- 
ver quartz mines, which are locatinl in the peninsula which stretches 
to the south between Berners Bay and Lynn Canal. These mines 
represent heavy investments of ca^jital and have })een large producers 
for al)out 10 years. 

JUNEAU DISTHU"r. 

Under this name is included a large group of important mines lying 
within 4 or 5 miles of tidewater at Gastineau Channel. The most 
important of these mines are in Gold Creek, which enters Gastineau 
Channel at Juneau from the northeast and on Sheep Creek which 
enters Gastineau Channel from th(» northeast, about .") miles soutlu^ast 
of Juneau. 

The Gold Creek mines, which include both placers and gold and 
silver quartz lodes, have Ixhmi heav\' producers for 20 years. They 
are all located a\ ithin -t miles of tidewater. 



LOCATION OF MINING DISTRICTS IN SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA. 287 

Tho Sliocp Civok miiuvs inohulo ooUl iiiul silver (|Uiivtz lodes, which 
have heeii extensively developed mid iiii])ort!int producers for UKiny 
years. Tho mines are all located within 4 miles of tidewater. 

SNETTISHAM DISTRICT. 

This district includes several mines wliich are located close to tide- 
water, in the peninsula which lies to the south of entrance to Port 
Snettisham. One group of mines is on the east side of the peninsula, 
a])out 1 mile southeast of Sentinel Point, and the othei" on the north 
side of the peninsula, about 2 miles southwest of Sentinal Point. 
These mines now being- actively developed are chiefly gold and silver 
l)earing (juartz lodes. Some mining developments have also been 
made near the north end of Port Snettisham. about latitude 58^ H'. 

SUMDUM DISTRICT. 

This district includes a group of mines located on Endicott Arm. 
The mines developed are gold and siher bearing* quartz lodes. The 
most important mine of this group is located, on Sumdum Island. 
Other mining locations are close to tidewater, on the north side of 
Endicott Arm, northeast of Sumdum Island. A third mining localitj' 
in this district is also near tidewater on Sanford Cove, a minor inden- 
tation of the southern shore of Endicott Arm. This cove is about 2 
miles southwest of Sumdum Island. 

WINDHAM BAY DISTRICT. 

This includes a group of mines which lies close to tidewater on 
"Windham Bay, which is tributary to Stephens Passage. The most 
important developments in this district are the so-called Schuck gold 
plac(n-s. which are located at the mouth of the Schuck River, at the 
head of AMndham Bay. 

UNUK RIVER DISTRICT. 

This comprises a newly developed district, located in the I'lud-c 
liivei- Valley. 25 or 30 miles from tidewater. The I'nuk River empties 
into Burroughs Bay. a branch of Behm Canal. The district, which 
comprises both gold placers and gold and silver bearing- quartz lodes, 
is being- rapidly ex])loited. 

KETCHIKAN DISTRICT. 

This is the southernmost of the mining districts of southeastern 
Alaska. It includes valuable gold, silvei", and (•opi)er deposits. These 
are located on Prince of ^^'ales, Gravina and Revilla-Ciigedo islands, 
as well as on the mainland. Of those on the mainland the most 
important ones are on Helm Bay, near the southermiiost point of the 
Cleveland Peninsula. In this region there are a numt)erof producing 
mines with extensixe equipments. 

Gohl placers have also l)een found in the K«^tcliikan District, near 
the head of Boca de Quadra, which is tril)utary from the northeast to 
Revillagigedo Channel. 
Very respectfully, 

AlKUKI) II. P)1{()<)KS. 

Geologifit in cJtKiye of geologic ^cork In Aliiskn. 



288 MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS, ETC. 

Letters given to Indians hy ofjicvrs of the United States. 

U. 8. Coast Survf.y Station ''Koii-Klux," 
Kat-kaijli-too Milage, Clulhiht Eicer., August 7, 1869. 
Tu-eek, a daughter of Shakes, the well-known Stakeen Chief, and 
wife of Koh-Klux, the principal Chief of the Chilkahts, bears a good 
reputation for courage and tinnness, combined with kindness. Dur- 
ing the absence of her husband upon any undertaking she exercises all 
his power over the Chilkats, so that it is well to obtain her good will 
and confidence. 

George Davidson, Comdg. Exixdition. 

I hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the 
original. 
[seal.] Sol. Kipinsky, 

Notary Pnhlic in and for the District of AlasJca. 

Haines, Alaska, May 28, 1903. 



The bearer of this is Ka-Klutch, the principle Chief of the Chilkat 
tribe. He is probably the most powerful chief for good or evil among 
the Kolotians. 

When he tirst made his appearance at my Head Quarters (in 18()8) his 
manners and action Avere very haughty and insolent. His ill feelings 
toward the Americans showed itself very conspicuoush' on many 
occasions. He was the principal provoker of the difficulty at Sitka on 
New Year's day, 1869. His confinement in the Guard House on this 
occasion seems to have wrought almost an entire change in his con- 
duct. 1 visited his village in the summer of 1865>, with the Hon. 
Wm. H. Seward, and Avas exceedingly courteously received by him 
and his tri))e. 

He is imperious and trustful 1 by nature, but a firm and just course 
followed in dealing- with him will, 1 think, manage him best. 

Jeff. C. Davis, 
Jjrf. Maj. Gen., Corn, of Dept. 

Steamer Neavheon, 

Chilh-at Harbor, July Jfth, 1870. 

I hereb}^ certify that the above is a true and correct copA' of the 
original. 

[seal.] Sol. Riitnskv, 

Notary Puhlic in and frr the District of Alaslxi. 

Haines, Alaska, May 28th, 190S. 



U. S. Flagship "Saraxac," 
Chilcat River, Alaska, July J 1st, 187 J. 
Koh-Klutch, Hig'h-Chief of Chilcats. visited this ship to-day and was 
entertained. His maniu>r Avas nu'ld and agreeable, and his unflinching" 
l)earingand fortitude during an examination made b}" ''Our Medicine- 



MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS, ETC. 289 

man," which imist have necessarily caused him a oi'eat deal of pain, 
was a subject of general reniai'k. 

He is at present an invalid, and has our sincere hopes for a speed}' 
recovery. 

L. E. CllENEHY, Lunt. 

W. E. Taylok, Svrgeon {medicine ni<ni). 

W. B. HoFF. Lf. Comdr. 

1 hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the 
orio'inal. 

[XOTAKIAL SEAL.] SOL. RlPINSKY, 

In (Old for the District of Alaska. 



U. S. S. Jamestown. 
To Shattk-h, Head Chief of the Ch Heats: 

I am sorry to know that some of your tribe have ))een tig-htino-, and 
I hope you will come with the leading- men to Sitka to see me and set 
tie the trouble without killing any more men. 

There ai:e other things I want to talk to you about so that 1 can 
help you settle all disputes among your Indians and keep peace. 

The officer who gives you this will tell you what Indians I want v-ou 
to bring with you and howl want to do all J can for all yoxxv tribe. 

Henry Glass, Ceymrnander, Coiadg. 

I hereby certify that the above is a true and correct cop}' of the 
original. 

[seal.] Sol. Ripinsky, 

Xotary PulA'ie in and for the District (f Alaska. 

Haines, Alaska, May i3S, 190S. 



U. S. S. "Wachusett," 
Chilcat, Alaska., August ^^, 1881. 
The bearer. Satrich, is herel)v recognized as the Chief of the Cinna- 
mon Bear tribe of the Chilcat Indians. 

He is said to ])e a good man. who has treated white men well. 
I hope all white men will treat him well also. 

Edward P. Lull. 

Com dr. Corndg. 

I hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the 
original. 

[seal.] Sol. Ripinsky, 

Notary Pahlic in and for the District of Alaska. 

Haines, Alaska, May 28., 1903. 



U. S. S. Adams. 
Chilkat (J)/ran,id). Moy 29th, 1883. 
The bearer, Shartrich. is recognized by me as Head Chief of the 
Chilkat village. He says that he will aid the whites in stopping mur- 



29U MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS, ETC. 

ders for witclu-i-at't and sec that no slavery or liifuor stays in his coun- 
try. He should be treated with respect and considci-ation and all aid 
jl'iven him, and it would ))e well for all whites to uphold him in his 
dioiiit\' as a Chief. He is a niaidy indian. He has promised that all 
white people may go and come tlirout^h the Chilkat country safely and 
without paying- royalty to an^- Indian. 

E. C. Merriman, 
Conidr. U. S. ^Y. , Coirab/. tii A/aska. 

I recommend that whites needing Indians in his Country employ the 
Chilkats as far as possible. It will leatl to good etfects. 

I hereby certify that the above is a true and correct cop}' of the 
originah 

[seal.] Sol. Ripinsky, 

Notary Public in and for the District of Alasl'a. 

Haines, Alaska, 2Iay '28th^ 1903. 



SUBJECT-INDEX TO THE COUNTER CASE. 



Pa<Te. 
Alaskan boundary question not mentioned in protocols of the Fisheries 

Commission of 1888 68 

American Company's desire to lease lixiPrc 45, 48 

American occupation 76-82 

Canneries estal )lished 78 

Civil jiovernment established in 1884 77 

Control of Indians 78 

Establishment of towns and settlements 77 

Judicial authority exercised by the United States 80 

Ogilvie's surveying party in 1887 78 

Skagway located 80 

Surveys 78 

Trading posts established 78 

Arrowsmith's maps 14 

before the negotiators 8, 14 

Article VII of the treaty of 1825 compared with Article IV of treaty of 1824. 36 

Bagot not familiar with the Vancouver narrative 8, 9, 10 

Bagot: 

The only one on the part of Great Britain who discussed Portland Canal 

with the Russians 12 

Bagot' s amended proposal of Feb. -Mar. , 1824 

Incomplete quotation from 23 

Bayard favors a conventional boundary line 6(5 

not aware that any question of true location of boundary existed 

before cession (iH 

proposes an international conunission to locate the boundary line.. 66 

Views of, as to the boundary on Portland Inlet 20 

Bear River 29, 30 

Beaver skins, the principal article of fur trade in lixiere 43 

Begg's opinion as to the location of the bomidary line 60 

Blake's opinion as to British riglit of navigating rivers of Alaska 59 

report and map of the Stikine River 62 

Boundaries proposed by ( ireat Britain 82-90 

Bomidary: 

As shown on Canadian map at Paris Kxposition 84 

Bayard not aware that any question of true location of, existed before 

cession 66 

Bayard's views as to location of, on Portland Inlet 20 

Begg's opinion as to the location of the 60 

British Case presents first distinct claim respecting 82 

British Columbian and British maps illustrating inconsistent British 

claims ; 85 

I 



II SUBJECT-INDEX TO THE COUNTER CASE. 

Page. 
Boundary — Continued. 

BritiBh Columbian legislature petitions for delineation of 55 

British minister calls attention to Coast and Geodetic Survey rei)ort 

resi)ectinji 72 

Cape Muzon is the jMiint of begiiniing of 11 

Chain of mountains at a trh jielitc dlstaHcc de In cute suggested by Hud- 
son's Bay Company as a 6 

Change in views of Canadian public men and writers regarding 84 

Course of, must be read in connection with maps before the negotiators. 38 

Course of, from Portland Canal to fifty-sixth parallel 90 

First distinct statement of British claim made in 1898 70 

Four points on which the British contention as to the southern l)ound- 

ary rests 22 

Hudson's Bay Company suggests chain of mountains as a 4 

Iddesleigh calls attention to map showing boundary line on the Sti- 

kine 67 

Line of 10 leagues from coast suggested by Hudson's Bay Company as . 6 
Location of, on Portland Canal unquestioned until meeting of Joint High 

Commission 19 

Location of southern, as claimed by Canadian writers 19 

Marking of, at head of Portland Canal and at other points, believed to be 

sufficient 56 

No controversy as to general course of, dui-ing period of 1872-1878 55, 56 

No distinct announcement up to August 1, 1898, that Great Britain enter- 
tained antagonistic- views respecting 74 

No divergenc-e of views as to treaty of 1825 was developed at Reciprocity 

Conference of 1892 69, 70 

Only the part north of 56° objected to by Great Britain after INIarch 29, 

1824 12 

Protest against, should have been made by (Treat Britain in 1867 or 1883. 73 

Question of, subsidiary to that of maritime jurisdii-tion 7 

Review of varying claims o" British and Canadian officials or subjects. . . 82-89 

Several other ways of running the, presented in British Case 27 

Southern line of, to lie coincident with that agreed upon with the United 

States 13 

Southern line of, was intended to be the parallel of 54° 40^ 11 

Statement of United States minister shows that 54° 40' was th'e line 

desired by Russia 16 

Survey of, recommended to Congress by President ( Jrant 56 

Views of Hon. David INIills as to 84 

Views of Hon. R. AV. Scott as to 84 

Boundary line: 

Attitude of United States as to, has been uniform and consistent 89 

Bayard favors a conventional line 66 

Bayard proposes an international commission to locate 66 

From Lynn Canal colored on Faden'smap, by Hudson's Bay Company. 4 

Protests (alleged British) against American claim of 71 

Boundary fnjm Portland Canal to latitude 56° 28-31 

Area of land between 56° and Bear River 30 

Behm (Janal cut in two by line claimed by (xreat Britain 29 

Claim of (Jreat Britain as to 28, 29 

Claim of the United States as to 28 

Should be drawn along axis of extension of vallev of Portland Canal. . . 31 



SUBJECT-INDEX T(» THE COUNTER CASE. Ill 

Boundary on the rivers: (iosnell's statement regarding 60 

( m the Houth set up in lease was 54° 4(y 46 

on tlie i^tikine River: Canadian Sessional Pajier No. 125 of 1S79 

relating to |nil)lishe<l by the United States 61 

Boundary line proposed was to he drawn l)etween head of Portland Canal 

and Mount St. Klias 56 

was to cross certain rivers 58, 60 

Boundary question: 

How it was presented by Canada at the Reciprocity Conference of 1892 . . 69 

Not mentioned in protocols of Fisheries Commission of 1888 68 

Senator Scott's opinion as to 70 

Boundary survey: 

begun by the United States alone 67 

Correspondence between Coast Survey and Canadian government 

respecting 67 

Estimated cost of 56 

Marking of boundary at Portland Canal and at certain other points, 

believed to be sufficient 56 

Matter of, referred to ('aptain Cameron 57 

Points at which it was suggested line should be marked 57 

Reason why United States did not join in 60 

Reports of Dennis, Humphreys, and Cameron on 57 

Of 1872-1874 55-61 

British Columbia: 

3Iap made to conform to interests of 83 

British negotiations of 1828-1825 2-11 

The United States has no further evidence to present as to course of . . . 2 

Analysis of additional British documents relating to 2-11 

British protests (alleged) against American boundary claim 71 

"Canada's protest" in British Case 71 

Canadian surveying parties in 1894: Instructions to, not made public 35 

Canadian writers' claims as to location of southern boundary 19 

Canal, meaning of 24 

Cameron boundary survey referred to 57 

Cameron's report on proposed boundary survey 57 

to the British Government: Extract with, is antagonistic 

to British claim 19 

Cape Muzon, the point of beginning of the boundary 11 

Cassiar district: 

Gold found in 62 

Gold yield of, in 1875 and 1876 62 

Clidiiie (Je iiioiifdf/nrs: 

used l)y Nesselrode 38 

used by Russian plenipotentiaries 38 

' ' Chain of mountains, ' ' used by H udson's Bay Company 38, 39 

Channel, meaning of 24 

Charter about to be granted by authorities of Alaska 71 

Chilkat and Stikine Indians, hunting and inland traffic carried on by 44 

Chilkat In<lians refuse to transport Ogilvie's party across mountains 53 

Chilkat River, mouth of, surveyed by the Russians 46 

Chilkat was in the leased territory 47 

Choquette case 64 



IV SUBJECT-INDEX TO THK COUNTER CASE. 

I'lige. 

Cime, us(.'(l in tlic (li]iluinatic correspondence 39 

Coast: 

Great Britain's nieiiiiini: of, in Fnr-Seal Arbitration 38 

Meaning? of 31 , 32, 33 

Meaning of, in Articles IV and VII of the treaties of 1S24 and 1.S25, 

I espectively 37 

Meaning of, in (onnec-tion with Mendenliall's instrnctions to United 

States surveyors 34 

Meaning of, in the treaty 36 

Use of the word in the negotiations 33 

Coast and Geodetic Survey report: Attention called to by British minister. . 72 

Coast Survey: Corresi)ondence l)etween Superintendent of and Canadian 

( lovernnient 67 

Colonial Office List: Its character 84 

Commission; 'See Joint High Cuinmisaion. 

Cute: 

Meaning of 31, 91 

Meaning of, in the treaty 32 

Counter case: 

Contents of 2 

Scope of 1 

Crete, meaning of 39 

Crete de.<< Memtngnes: 

Meaning of 31 

Meaning of, contended for by Great Britain 39 

Does not mean peaks of the mountains 91 

Cross Sound Indians sell their peltry to Russian trading vessel 46 

Correspondence: 

Bayard to Phelps, 1885 20 

Canning to Bagot, July 25, 1823 2 

Canning to Bagot, January 20, 1 824 4 

Canning to Stratford Canning, Deceml)er 8, 1824 6 

Conyngham to Hudson's Bay Company, October 19, 1824 5 

Hay to Pauncefote, February 28, 1902 21 

Hudson's Bay Company to Canning, April 19, 1824 4 

Hudson's Bay Company to Conyngham, October 20, 1824 5 

Hudson's Bay Company to Foreign Office, ^Nlay 26, 1824 5 

Memorandum from Hudson's Bay Company of January 16, 1824 3 

iMemorandum of January 13, 1824, from Hudson's Bay Company to 

Canning 3 

Middleton to Department of State, April 1 9, 1 824 16 

Nesselrode to Lieven, August 31 , 1 824 17 

Of 1886 6(1-68 

Pauncefote to Blaine, June 5, 1891 21 

Pauncefote to Department of State, February 23, 1 898 73 

Phelps to Salisbury, January 19, 1886 20 

Raikes to Adee, September 6, 1902 21 

Dall-Dawson conferences, not mentioned in protocols of the Fisheries Com- 
mission of 1888 68 

Dall- Dawson discussion 68-69 

Dall's letter to Dawson in 1886 66 

Dall understood the character and effect of his meeting with Dawson 68 



SU H.I ECT- INDEX TO THE COUNTER CASE. V 

Page. 

Dennis'n report on proposed 1 m lundary survey hi 

Descriptive coast, meaning of 32 

Draft treaty (Britisli) of December <S, 1824, is inipurtant (> 

Drijml, case of, resulted in lease of Ihit're 42 

Dyea: Allejjed Canadian protest against occupancy of, l)y tiie United States. 73 

Dyea and Skagway: Laurier's remarks in Parliament regarding 75-76 

Elk, meaning of, in Article III of treaty of 1825 28 

Evidence, additional Britisli, as to negotiations of 1824-25 strengthens case 

of the United States 2 

Faden's map 15 

Considered by Canning as the most authentic 3 

Extent to which it figured in the negotiations 7 

Faden maps 4 

Fur Seal Arbitration: Position of (ireat Britain now is directly oi)posed to 

her position in 37 

Gaillard's survey in 1893-94 20 

Geographical data before the negotiators 13 

Gold discovered on the Stikine River 54 

Gold fields on Stikine found to be bej'ond Russian border 54 

Gold yield of Cassiar district in 1875 and 1876 62 

Gosnell's statement regarding boundary line on the rivers 60 

Healy's deposition shows limits of lisien' .53 

testimony as to American occupation of head of Lynn Canal 78 

Hudson's Bay Company: 

British Government acted solely in the interests of 6, 7, 9 

Claimed by British Government not to be its representative 49 

Considered lisitn-c as belonging to Russia 45 

Consulted by (ireat Britain 17 

Earnestly sought right to hunt and trap in Usih'e 44, 4.5 

Exercised the powers of government within its territories 50 

Extent to which it figured in the negotiations 6, 7, 9 

Gained no advantage by lease if British line is the correct one 46 

Had before it the narratives of Cook, Vancouver, and others 2 

Investigation of affairs of, by Parliament in 1857 47 

Leasetl territory l)ounded on the south by latitude 54° 40' 19 

Martin's testimony as to its relations with the British Govermnent 52 

The representative of (ireat Britain 50, 51, 52 

Requested to make observations on Eleven's note 5 

Was the directing power in the negotiations 49, 50 

Suggests chain of mountains as a lioundary .5 

Suggests that range of mountains l)e not more than 10 leagues from 

shores 5 

The de facto government west of the Rocky Mountains 49 

The real party in interest 3 

United States claims that the company was the representative of (ireat 

Britain 49 

Withdraws from lisi^re in 1867 49 

{See alxo Lisiere.) 
Hudson's Bay Company's: 

Claim against Russia 42 

Establishments, supposed inlets comnmnioating with 23 

Memorandum to Canning, Se|)teml)er 25, 1S22 2 

Memorandum to Canning of .January 13, 1824 3 



VI SUBJECT-INDEX TO THE COUNTER CASE. 

Hudson's Bay C()mi)any's — Cdiitiimed. Page. 

Post on the Stikine 62 

Post more tlian 60 miles uj) the Stikine River 65 

Posts marked on Faden's map 4 

Posts west of the Rocky Mountains shown on Faden's maji 7 

Humphrey's report on proposed boundary survey 57 

Hunter claims to have found mountain range described in treaty 65 

Hunter's survey and map of Stikine River 64-66 

Iddesleigh calls attention to map showing boundary line on the Stikine 67 

Inlets, nothing gained l)y Ureat Britain by lease if she owned heads of 45 

If, meaning of, in Article III of treaty of 1825 28 

Investigation of affairs of Hudson's Bay Company ))y Parliament: 

Maps showing leased territory 47 

Rae's and Simpson's testimony as to extent of leased territory 48 

Joint High Commission, British members of, not authorized to bring up 

question of boundary on Portland Canal 21 

Jurisdiction of Russia in the liaiere: 

As instanced by the McLoughlin murder case 54 

As shown by control of Indians 54 

Labrador, use of word "coast" in proclamations and laws of Great Britain 

relating to 33 

Langsdorff map of 1803-1805 possibly l)efore the negotiators 8 

probably not consulted by the negotiators 13 

Lansdowne's declaration respecting the boundary 75 

Latitude 54° 40^: 

Intended as line of southern boundaj-y 11 

Stated by Simpson to be the southern boundary of the Iit<iere 46 

Was southern boundary set up in lease 46 

Was the line desired by Russia, as shown by ^linister Middleton's 

statement 16 

Laurier, meaning of words ' ' ocean ' ' and ' ' sea, ' ' as used by 34 

Leach's survey of the Stikine River 62 

Lease of U sieve: 

Nothing gained by Great Britain l)y lease, if she owned heads of inlets. 45 

Suggested by Wrangell 42 

Terms of 43 

Why Hudson's Bay Comi)any entered into 43 

Why Russian American Company entered into 43 

Lisiere. {See 'd\so Ihidson^s Bai/ Couipnwj; Latitude 50° 40' ; Lease of Lisiere; 
Navigation.) 

Alleged absence of control bj' United States 77 

American company desired to lease. 45, 48 

As defined during the Fur-Seal arbitration l)y British counsel 89 

As given in British Case would not have supported interests of Russia. . 40 

Baron Wrangell suggests lease of. by Hudson's Bay Company 42 

Boundary of, as shown by offer of an American company to lease 48 

British contention would make line cross Lynn Canal HO miles below 

head of Taiya Inlet 35 

Chilkat and head of Lynn Canal was in the 47 

Control by United States asserted 77 

Every act of British and Canadian governments up to recent times cor- 
roborated American contention respecting the 42 

Extent of, as understood by other nations for seventy-five years, is 

opposed to British contention 41 

54° 40' stated by Simjison to be the southern limit of 46 



SUBJECT-INDEX TO THE COUNTER CASE. VII 

Lixiere — Coiitiimfd. Page. 

Healy's depc-^ition shows limits of 53 

Hudson's Bay Company withdraws from, in 1S()7 49 

Huntinij and fur trade in, monopolized by Russians 44 

Intention of iwirties to treaty resiiecting //.s/7'(v' is vital to true interpreta- 
tion (jf treaty 40 

Is broken into frajiments by the British line S9 

Lease of, by Hudson's Bay Company 42-53 

Lease of, signed February 6, 1839 43 

Lease of, to Hudson's Bay Company conclusive proof of Russia's sov- 
ereignty over 53 

Limits of, definitely established before Parliamentary committee in 1857 . 53 
Map in investigation by Parliament shows leased territory of Hudson's 

Bay Company 47 

^laps since 1825 that support contention of the United States as to 41 

IMendenhall's instructions to United States surveyors regarding bound- 
ary of 35 

No object in Hudson's Bay Company in leasing, if heads of inlets did 

not belong to Russia 45, 46 

Nothing gained by Great Britain by lease if she owned heads of inlets . 45, 46 

Purpose of Russia in demanding a 39, 40 

Rae's testimony as to extent of 48 

Renewals of lease of, to Hudson's Bay Company 47 

Report of Ogilvie's surveying party fn 1887 shows linuts of 53 

Right to hunt and trap in, earnestly sought l)y Hudson's Bay Company. 44 

Right to navigate rivers in, lost to Great Britain 60 

River-beaver skins the principal article of fur trade in 43 

Russia and United States in uncontested possession of, since 1825 74 

Russian jurisdiction in, as instanced by McLoughlin murder case 54 

Russian occupation of 53 

Simpson's testimony as to extent of 48 

Simpson's visit to 46 

Terms of lease of 43 

Value of rights secured by Hudson's Bay Company in lease of 45 

Why Hudson's Bay Company entered into lease of 43 

Why Russian American Company entered into 43 

"Width of ten leagues suggested by Hudson's Bay Company 6 

Lisiere and its eastern boundary line: 

Contention of Great Britain as to 31 

Contention of the United States as to 31 

Llfiiere from Cape Spencer to latitude 54° 40^ considered by Hudson's Bay 

Company as belonging to Russia 45 

Longitude, how reckoned l)y the negotiators and by Vancouver 10 

L' UniiTrs, statement in, as to locatio i of Portland Channel 24 

Lynn Canal: 

British contention would make line cross 35 

Debate in Canadian parliament respecting ownership of 75 

Head and shores of, surveyed by Canadian surveying parties 36 

Head of, was in the leased territory 47 

United States has l)een in control of, since 18(i7 SI 

McLoughlin, killing of 54 

Map: 

Canadian, at Paris Exjiosition 84 

Extent to which Faden's map figured in the negotiations 7 



Vlir SUBJECT-INDEX TO THE COUNTER CASE. 

Map — Continued. Page. 

Faden's, considered by Canning as the most authentic 3 

Made to conform to interest.^ < )f British Columbia 83 

Of 1867 generally accepted by British and Canadian (illicials and (ithers 

for twenty years 82 

Of 1902 i.ssued by Canadian Department ni tlic interior 33 

Since 182o that supi>ort the contention of the United States res]iecting 

the liifih-e 42 

Maps: 

Admiralty chart of 1868 30 

Arrowsmith maps of 1833 and 1857 15 

A study of 85-87 

Before the negotiators 7-8 

British Admiralty map of 1865 15 

British Admiralty charts of 1868 15, 16 

British Columbian and British, illustrating inconsistent British claims. . 85 
(Canadian official) cease to show boundary as United States claims 

since 1888 83 

Changes in those emanating from British or Canadian sources 83-84 

Explanation of some discrepancies in two United States maps 90 

Faden's 4 

For seventy-five years after treaty show boundary as claimed l)y the 

United States 30 

Published after the treaty, what a comparison of, shows 16 

Pul)lished since treaty corroborate claim of the United States as to 

southern boundary 15 

Quartermaster-General's maj) of 1802 13 

Russian copies of Vancouver's charts consulted during the negotiations. 3 

United States Coast Survey map of 1867 15 

Martin (Peter) case of 58, 64 

Martin (R. H.) states that Hudson's Bay Company materially aided Can- 
ning in the negotiations 49 

testimony of, as to tlie relations of the Hudson's Bay Company with 

(ireat Britain 52 

^ledals conferred by Russia on native chiefs 53 

Mendenhall's instructions to United States surveyors 34, 35, 36 

iNIills's opini(m as to loss of British rights by treaty of 1871 59 

Views as to boundary 84 

Mendenhall's views on the boundary (piestion 34, 36 

Mines: 

How affected by new line ])roposed by Great liritain 88 

Location and character of 88 

Mudm nreiidi of 1898-99 grew out of British note of Feljruary 23, 1898 73 

Monopoly of hunting and fur trade in /isirn by the Russians 44 

Mountain range described iu treaty, claimed to have been found I)y Hunter. 65 
Mountains: 

Continuous range of, shown on Russian map of 1802, Faden's of 1823, 

and Vancouver's chart, and one of Arrowsnnth's maps 38 

How they are to range witti the sinuosity of tlie coast 5 

No range of, parallel to the coast, within 10 leagues, exists 39 

Peaks of, are not la crtte ilea moiilagnes, etc 91 

Mount St. Elias is not in British territory 41 

Navigability (comparative) of Portland and Pearse canals 25-27 

Navigation of inland waters not claimalde as of right by citizens of another 

nation 26 



SUBJECT-INDEX TO THE COUNTER CASE. IX 

Navifratiim of rivers of Alaska: 

Bernard and Tenterdeu's opinions as to loss of liritisli rijiht to 00 

Mills's oi)inion as to loss of British ri^ht to 59 

Rijrhts of Great Britain to, lost by treaty of 1S71 59 

Nomenclature of mountains shown on Admiralty chart of 1868 30 

Neutrality between Kussia and Cireat Britain on the northwest coast in l<So4. 52 

Northwest coast, meaning of, in British Counter Case in Fur Seal Arbitra- 
tion 37 

Observatory Inlet: 

On Arrowsmith's maps 14 

( )n Faden's map 15 

On Vancouver's map 14 

Of Vancouver, iiupiiry as to what was, without jH-ofit in the iiKjuiry 11 

Ocean: 

How the word is used 32 

Meaning of 31, 91 

In the treaty 32 

As used by Laurier 34 

Occupation. (See American occupafiov. ) 

Ogil vie's surveying i)arty in 1887 78 

Report of, shows limits of lisih-e 53 

Omissions in British Case 10 

Parallel of 54° 40' as boundary: 

Application for renewal of lease to Hudson's Bay Company mentions . . 18 

Governor Simpson's assertions as to 18 

Nesselrode's assertions as to 17,18 

R. M. Martin's assertions as to 18 

Russia intended and British minister understood this to be southern 

boundary 16-24 

So stated regarding application of an American company for a lease in 

1867 IS 

Why Russia fixed on that line 12 

Parallel of 56°, why Bagot opposed the granting of the continental shore 

below this parallel to Russia 9 

Passe: 

Cleaning of, in British Case 23 

Other meanings of 24 

Pearse Canal : 

l)escrii>tion of 2() 

Did not connnunicate with Hudson's Bay Company's establishments .. 23 

Line through, would debar the United States from its territory 26 

Line through, would give (ireat Britain control of both shores of Port- 
land Canal 27 

Pearse and Portland canals: 

Comj)arative navigability of 25-27 

Pearse and Wales islamls: 

Not officially claimed by Great Britain until submission of its Case 22 

Storehouses erected by the United States on 20 

Strategic value of 27 

Pelly, J. H. (See IIuihi>n\^ Bai/ ('o)iip(nii/, and ('orrrsjiOiKleiici .) 

Perrier Pass, location of 71 

Peter Martin case 5S. 64 

Physical coast line, definition of -M 

I'inta, courtesies of commander of, to Ogilvie's surveying party 7!' 



X SUBJECT-INDEX TO THE COUNTER CASE. 

Page. 

Political coast line, description of a 32 

Portland and Pearse canals, comparative navigability of 25-27 

Portland Canal (See, also, I'urtlnnd Inlet) 11-28 

Boundary line to be drawn between, and Blount St. Ellas 56 

Boundary on, uiuiuestioned until meeting of Joint High Commission .. 19 
British Joint High Connnissiouers not authorized to bring up question 

of boundary on 21 

Character of country along extension of valley of 29 

First mention of 12 

Head of, may be mouth of a river. 9 

Joint survey of 1893 and 1894 began operations at head of 20 

Location of, first officially questioned in British Case 25 

Marking of boundary at, ancl at other points, believed to be sufficient.. 56 

No stated difference of opinion as to location of 22 

On Arrowsmith's maps 14 

On Faden's map 15 

On Vancouver's map 15 

Vancouver's evidence as to location of 8 

Quotation from Bagot's amended proposal has no bearing on location of. 23 
Silence of Cireat Britain for twelve years as to United States claim to 

boundary on 20 

Statement in jL' Univers as to location of . 24 

Statement in Wheaton as to location of 24 

Strategic value of 27 

Terminates in low, marshy land 10 

The broad inlet so named in Scott's report 24 

The evidence shows it to be " Portland Inlet " 25 

What it is not 90 

Why no discussion of, is made in the Hudson's Bay Company's corre- 
spondence 13 

Of the negotiators — 

The real question 12 

What the United States contends it to be 15 

Of Vau^oiiver, inquiry as to what was, immaterial 1 

Portland Inlet: 

As located by the British Case 19 

Bayard's view as to boundary on 20 

Line of demarcation enters .• 11 

Prince of Wales Island, reason for mention of, in the treaty 11 

Protest against boundary shoul<l have been made by Great Britain in 1867 

or 1 883 73 

Protest: 

Alleged Canadian, against occupation of Dyea by the United States 73 

British (alleged) falls short of requirements of international law 74 

Quartermaster-general's map of 1802, Great Britain's purpose in reproducing 

a section of, not understood 13 

(iuotaticni (incomplete) from Bagot's amended proposal of February-March, 

1824 . 23 

Kae's testimony as to extent of teri'itory leaseil l)y Hudson's Bay C()nq)any. 48 

Reciprocity (conference of 1892: 

How question of boundary was presented by Canada at 69 

]\Iain ol)ject of Canada in taking part in, was commercial reciprocity... 09 

No divergence of views as to treaty of 1825 was developed at 69, 70 



SUBJECT-INDEX TO THE COUNTKK CASE. XI 

Page. 

Rio de los Reyes: search for, one of tlie objects of Vaiuonver's expeilition.. 9 

R'lvage, meaning of 31 

Rivers of Alaska, right of (ireat Britain to navigati()n of, lost by treaty of 

1871 59 

to be crossed by proposed boundary line 58 

Routes from interior connected with heads of larger inlets 45 

Russian chart, copied from Vancouver's survey, sent to Canning by Hudson's 

Bay Company 3 

occupation of the lixu'ri' 53-55 

territory, southeastern boundary of, on Faden's map 4 

Schwatka's reconnaissance 71 

Scott's opinion as to the l)oundary question 70 

report 24 

testimony as to government by the Hudson's Bay Company 50 

views as to boundary 84 

Shore, meaning of 31 

Sifton, in debate, on Lynn Canal 75 

Simpson's testimony as to extent of territory leased by Hudson's Bay Com- 
pany 48 

visit to the Usiere 46 

Sinuosites, meaning of 31 

Sinuosity of the coast, how the mountains are to range with the 5 

Skagway located 80 

Smith's testimony as to American occupation 80- 

Statement in conclusion 90 

St. Elias (Mount) not in British territory 41 

Stikine River. (See also Bonndarif on the Stikine Rin'r.) 

British custom-house located in American territcjry 63 

Blake's report and map of 62 

Boundary line on, located variously Ijy Hudson's Bay Company, Rus- 
sian Government, and others 63 

Boundary on 61-66 

Cases of Choquette and ^lartin 64 

Canachan Privy Council states where river and boundary line intersect. . 64 

Dispute as to boundary at 22 

Erection of a post on, by Hudson's Bay Company 44 

Open to (ireat Britain for commerce only 59 

Gold discovered on, above boundary line 62 

Hudson's Bay Company's post on 62 

1 1 unter's survey and map of 64-66 

Iddesleigh calls attention to map showing l)oundary line on the 67 

Joint survey of, propose<l by the I'nited States 64 

NavigaVnlity of 61, 62 

( )gden's journey up 62 

Point on, that should be crossed Ijy boundary line 61 

Surveyed by the Russians and British 62 

Temporary boundary on, agreed to by the United States 65 

Town laid out in 1875 below boundary line on 63 

AVood's report of his journey u]) the 65 

Wright's map compared with Hunter's 65 

Stikine and Chilkat Indians, hunting and inland trafhc carried on by 44 

Storehouses erected by the United States on Pearse and Wales islands 20. 22 

on Pearse and Wales islands, incjuiry of the British (jovern- 

ment regarding 21 

26H26— AP 20 



XII SUBJECT-INDEX TO THE COUNTER CASE. 

Page. 

Strategic value of Pears^e and Wale^ island;^ 27 

humming up 90-92 

"SuHuiiit," used only in the lingular in the eorrespondence 39 

"Summits," use of this word (in the plural) in British case, isimwaiTanted. 39 
Survey of boundary (proposed): Keports nf Dennis, Humphreys, and Cam- 
eron on 57 

Survey of boundary. (See also Boundary Surrci/.) 

Begun by the United States alone 67 

Keeommended to Congress by President Grant 56 

Estimated c-ost of 56 

Matter of, referred to Captain Cameron 57 

Eeason why United States did not join in 60 

Survey (joint) of 1893 and 1894 began operations ut head of Portland Canal. 20 

Surveys by the Russians of mouth of Chilkat River and of Taku Inlet 46 

Taku Inlet, mouth of, surveyed by the Russians 46 

Territory of Russia, southeastern boundary of, on Faden's map 4 

Thirty-mile belt of American territory mentioned in petition of British 

Columbian legislature 55 

Tongass Island, establishment of a United States military post at 22, 24 

Treaty between United States and Russia referred to in Hudson's Bay Com- 
pany's letter of May 26, 1824 5 

Treaty of 1825: 

Meaning of "it" and ''elle" in Article III of 28 

No controversy as to interpretation of, during period of 1872-1878 55,56,60 

Tupper, in debate, on boundary 85 

in debate, on Lynn Canal 75 

United States, attitude of, has been uniform and consistent 89 

Value of rights secured by Hudson's Bay Company in Ilsiere 45 

Vancouver's book, no citation in British Case to show that the book was 

before the negotiators 8 

Vancouver's charts: 

Before the negotiators 8 

Russian copies of, consulted during the negotiations 3 

Vancouver's expedition, object of 8 

Vancouver's narrative: 

Before Hudson's Bay Company 2 

Irrelevant and immaterial in interpreting Articles III and IV of treaty 

of 1825 10 

United States denies that Vancouver's narrative was before the negoti- 
ators 8 

Was not before the negotiators 23 

Vancouver's map 14 

Observatory Inlet, inquiry as to what was, without profit 11 

Portland Canal, inquiry as to what, immaterial 11 

surveys, exactness of 9 

Wales Island. (See also J'carse and ]Vak'x islandx.) 

Failure of the United States to erect a military post on 22 

Wheaton, statement in, as to location of Portland Channel 24 

Wood's rej)ort of his journey up the Stikine 65 

Wright's map compared with Hunter's 64 

survev of the Stikine River ■ 63 



INDEX TO THE APPENDIX. 



Affidavit?. ( (See Depositions. ) Page. 

Arbitration: 

of Alaskan boundary, Correppondence relative to 124-161 

Beaver: 

Competition between Hudson's Bay Company and the Russian Amer- 
ican Company in trade in 1-2; 10-11 

Memorandum on, by Dr. C. Hart Merriam 48 

Begg, Alexander. {See Extracts.) 

Books. ((See Extracts. ) 

Boundary: 

Address of British Culumliia Legislative Assembly relative to, January 

8, 1874 , '. 1 50 

Agreement of Canada to survey of, by a commission 91-92 

British Government agrees to preliminary survey 92 

British Government proposes to submit to arbitration 1 24-125 

Cameron's memorandum on 161-162 

Canadian customs officials on Stikine River at, Instructions to 65 

Canadian view of question ( Hon. D. Mills) 204-207 

Correspondence of 1888 relative to proposed survey of 174-177 

Dall's memorandum relative to 98-108 

Dall's report of conference with Dawson relative to 94 

Debates, Senate and House of Commons, Canada, on 164-172 

Instructions to U. S. commissioner in 1892 as to survey of 268-269 

Memorial of British Columbia Legislative Assembly relative to, January 

19, 1874 '. '. ". 49 

Mendenhall's article on, in Atlantic Monthly 269-276 

Proposed Canadian survey of, in 1877 71-72 

Reasons given by Canadians in 1874 why survey should l)e made 50 

Report of Committee of Elxecutive Council of British Columbia on 180-190 

Report of Privy Council of Canada on survey of, November 23, 1875... 68-69 

Rei)orts of U. S. officials as to necessity for survey of 78 

United States' estimate of cost of survey 51-52 

West's memorandum on 93 

Canals. {See Portland and Pearse canals. ) 

Certificates: 

given to Indians by Russians and by American officials 212-214; 288-290 

Channels. {See Portland and Pearse canals. ) 

Charts. (^SV^Maps. ) 

Commissions: 

Correspondence of 1886 relative to appnintment of 91-93 

Joint High, Correspondence after adjournment of 124-163 

{See aUo Reciprocity Conference of 1892.) 

Cooper, James: 

Testimony as to jurisdiction exercised by Hudson's Bay Company 44-45 

1 



II INDEX TO THE APPENDIX. 

Corre8j)Oii<leiK't': Page. 

Addington, H. U. — 

To Hudson's Bay Company, March 22, 1854 18 

Bayard, Thos. F.— 

' From Helyar, March 12, 1886 91 

From West, April 3, 1886 92 

To West, April 8, 1886 92 

To Phelps, April 26, 1886 93 

From Tnpper, February 11, 1888 156 

From Dall, February 13, 1888 94 

From Dall, December 19, 1888 97 

Berry, M. P.— 

To Bristow, August 21, 1875 66 

To Bristow, August 21, 1875 66-67 

To Bristow, INIarch 20, 1876 73 

To Bristow, June 15, 1876 75 

From Morrill, July 14, 1876 69-70 

To 3Iorrill, August 24, 1876 77 

To Choquette, September 19, 1876 70 

To Morrill, October 12, 1876 77 

To Morrill, March 29, 1877 71-72 

From Sherman, April 23, 1877 72 

Blaine, James G. — 

From Pauncefote, September 15, 1890 114-115 

]\Iemorandum on proposed joint commission, December 22, 1890 .. 115 

From Pauncefote, January 27, 1891 1 15-116 

From Pauncefote, January 31, 1891 116 

From Pauncefote, March 20, 1891 116 

To Pauncefote, April 1, 1891 11 7-118 

From Pauncefote, April 4, 1891 118 

From Pauncefote, April 8, 1891 118 

From Pauncefote, April 18, 1891 118 

From Pauncefote, January 14, 1892 120 

From Pauncefote, January 27, 1892 120 

To Pauncefote, February 1, 1892 121 

To Pauncefote, Fel)ruary 27, 1892 121 

Bristow, Benj. H. — 

To Fish, August 12, 1874 ' 64 

From Berry, August 21, 1875 66 

From Berry, A ugust 21 , 1875 66-67 

To Fish, September 13, 1875 66 

From Fish, September 23, 1875 67 

From Berry, INIarch 20, 1876 73 

From Berry, June 15, 1876 75 

To Fish, June 20, 1876 72-73 

Brodie, 

From Choquette, September 29, 1876 70-71 

Brooks, Alfred H. — 

Report on mines in limere, June 4, 1 il03 286-287 

Burpee, Isaac — 

To Dufferin, June 4, 1874 62-63 

Callbreath, J. C— 

To Morris, July 11, 1878 82-83 



INDEX TO THE APPENDIX. Ill 

Correspondence — Continued. Page. 

Cameron, General I). K. — 

From Tenterden, January 29, 1.S74 51 

From Thornton, February 18, 1874 50 

Reference to report of 160-162 

Carnarvon, Earl of — 

To Duffertn, March 14, 1874 59 

To Dufferin, Oc-tober 22, 1875 67 

Chapman, Wilie — 

From P>ksteiu, ]\Iarch 16, 1874 61 

From Eckstein, March 20, 1874 61-62 

To Treasury Department, April 2, 1874 60-61 

Choate, Joseph H. — 

From Villiers, May 13, 1899 124-125 

From Salisbury, May 17, 1899 125 

To Salisbury, May 18, 1899 125-127 

To Salisbury, May 19, 1899 127-128 

From SaHsbury, July 1, 1899 128-129 

To Salistniry, August 9, 1899 129-132 

To Salisbury, January 22, 1900 138-155 

Choquette, A. — 

From Berry, September 19, 1876 70 

To Brodie, September 29, 1876 70-71 

Christie, D. — 

To Dufferin, November 21, 1873 55 

Collins, Geoi'ge — 

Statement of, relative to Leach's survey 73 

Colon na, B. A. — 

To Dawson, November 26, 1888 174 

From Dawson, December 1, 1888 175 

Cpnant, Charles F. — 

From Fish, June 24, 1876 74 

To Fish, June 27, 1876 74 

To Fish, September 16, 1876 76 

Dall, ^Yilliam H.— 

To Bayard, February 13, 1888 94 

To Bayard, December 19, 1888 97 

Memorandum on Alaskan Boundary 98-108 

Supplementary memorandum on Alaskan Boundary 108-113 

Darling, Charles M. — 

To Secretary of State, .^lay 22, 1903 241 

Davis, J. Bancroft — 

From Thorton, July 31, 1873 53 

To Thornton, September 15, 1873 53-54 

Dawson, George M. — 

From Colonna, Noveml)er 2(i, 1888 174 

To Colonna, December 1, 1888 175 

{See also Extracts.) 

Derby, Earl of — 

From Thornton, September 27, 1875 68 

Dewdney, G. — 

From Thorn, December 14, 1888 176 

To Thorn, December 27, 1888 177 



lY INDEX TO THE APPENDIX. 

Correspondence — Contimu'd. Page. 

Diekins, E. F.— 

From Mendenhall, March 22, 1894 278-279 

Douglas, J. — 

From p:tholine, November 12, 1840 9-12 

Dufferin, P'.arl of — 

From Christie, November 21, 1873 .< 55 

To Thornton, November 25, 187o 54—55 

To Kimberley, February 1 3, 1874 58 

From Carnarvon, March 14, 1874 59 

From Burpee, June 4, 1874 62-63 

To Watson, July 20, 1874 62 

From Carnarvon, October 22, 1875 67 

{See also Extracts. ) 

Duncan, Eeverend WilHam — 

Statement as to settlement founded by, in Alaska, in 1862 282 

Eckstein, D. — 

To Chapman, March 16, 1874 61 

To Chapman, :\Iarch 20, 1874 61-62 

Etholine, A. — 

To Lindenberg, July 23, 1840 84-85 

To Douglas, November 12, 1840 9-12 

Fish, Hamilton — 

From Kichardson, September 12, 1873 54 

From Thornton, December 1, 1873 55-56 

From Richardson, December 10, 1873 57-58 

To Thornton, December 13, 1873 57 

To Thornton, January 2, 1874 58 

To Thornton, February 17, 1874 51 

From Sawyer, April 25, 1874 60 

To Thornton, "Slay 2, 1874 59-60 

From Watson, July 30, 1874 63 

From Bristow, August 12, 1874 64 

To Watson, August 18, 1874 64 

From Bristow, September 13, 1875 66 

To Bristow, September 23, 1875 67 

From Bristow, June 20, 1876 72-73 

To Conant, June 24, 1876 74 

From Conant, June 27, 1876 74 

From Morrill, July 25, 1876 75 

To Morrill, July 29, 1876 75-76 

From Conant, September 16, 1876 76 

Flemer, J. A. — 

From .Mendenhall, April 9, 1894 '. 280-281 

Foster, John W. — 

To Mendenhall, September 8, 1892 268-269 

From Hay, November 4, 1899 121 

To Hay, November 7, 1899 122-123 

Frelinghuysen, Frederick T. — 

From West, November 5, 1883 88 

To West, November 17, 1883 88 

Gaillard, Captain David D. — 

Description of Pearse and Portland canals 240-241 



INDEX TO THE APPENDIX. V 

Correspondence — Continued. Page. 

Gortfhakov, Prince — 

From Reiitern, March IH, 18(57 32-33 

Graves, Herliert C. — 

Report on Portland Canal 237-239 

Hall, Colonel William V.— 

To Secretary of State, ?tlay 21, 1903 ' 240 

Hay, John — 

" To Foster, November 4, 1899 121 

From Foster, November 7, 1899 122-123 

To White, I)eceinl)er 18, 1902 162 

From White, .January 23, 1903 162 

From Tittmann, June 3, 1903 174 

Helyar, H. O.— 

To Bayard, March 12, 1886 :- 91 

Hovi^ard, General O. O. — 

From Wood, January 15, 1877 78-81 

Hunter, Joseph — 

From Johnson, :\Iay 18, 1878 82 

Humphreys, General A. A. — 

To Secretary of War, Jamiary 29, 1873 51-52 

Jocelyn, Captain S. P. — 

Report on necessity for survey of boundary 78-80 

Johnson, J. — 

To Hunter, May 18,1878 82 

Kimberley, Earl of — 

From Dufferin, February 13, 1874 58 

Kniajevitch, A. — 

To Russian minister of foreign affairs, March 3, 1859 23 

Kupreyanoff, Captain Ivan — 

From board of directors of Russian American Company, April 17, 

1839 <>-9 

Lansdowne, Lord — 

To Raikes, August 18, 1902 156-161 

Lindenberg, Lieutenant — 

From Etholine, July 23, 1840 84-85 

^IcCrary, (ieo. W. — 

To Secretary of State, May 4, 1877 78 

McGrath, J. E. 

From Mendeuhall, March 24, 1894 279-280 

Mendenhall, Superintendent T. C. — 

From Foster, September 8, 1892 268-269 

To Pratt, March 21, 1894 276-277 

To Dickins, March 22, 1894 278-279 

To Morse, [March 22, 1894 278 

To McGrath, March 24, 1894 279-280 

To Flemer, April 9, 1894 280-281 

To Ritter, April 9, 1894 281 

{Si'e also Extracts.) 
Merriam, C. Hart — 

Memorandum on "The Beaver " -1'"^ 

Miles, General Nelson A. — 

Instructions to Lieutenant Schwatka, April 7, 18S3 89-90 



VI INDEX TO thp: appendix. 

Correspondence — Continued. Page. 

Moore, Captain William — 

Report of expedition to Cassiar District, November 29, 1873 85-86 

Morrill, L. M.— 

To Berry, July 14, 1876 69-70 

To Fish, July 25, 1876 75 

From Fish, July 29, 1876 75-76 

From Berry, August 24, 1876 77 

From Berry, October 12, 1876 77 

From Berry, March 29, 1877 71-72 

Morris, William C. — 

From Callbreath, July 11, 1878 82-83 

Morse, Fremont — 

From Mendenhall, March 22, 1894 278 

Xesselrode, Count — 

Report on lease of lif<i?re l)y Hudson's Bay Company 3 

Memorial on neutrality of American possessions during Crimean 

War, January 23, 1S54 14 

Pauncefote, Sir Julian — 

To Blaine, September 15, 1890 114-1 15 

^Memorandum on proposed joint connnission, December 22, 1890. . . 115 

To Blaine, January 27, 1891 115-116 

To Blaine, January 31, 1891 116 

To Blaine, March 20, 1891 116 

From Blaine, April 1, 1891 117-118 

To Blaine, April 4, 1891 118 

To Blaine, April 8, 1891 118 

To Blaine, April 18, 1 891 119 

Suspension of reciprocity negotiations, ^lay 21 , 1891 119 

To Wharton, October 2, 1891 119-120 

To Blaine, January 27, 1892 120 

To Blaine January 14, 1892 120 

From Blaine, February 1, 1892 121 

From Blaine, February 27, 1892 121 

Pelly, J. H.— 

To Earl Grey, September 13, 1849 253 

Phelps, E. J. — 

From Salisbury, January 26, 1886 91 

From Roseberry, Aj^ril 15, 1886 92 

From Bayard, April 26, 1886 93 

Plunkett, F. R.— 

To Seward, September 25, 1877 87 

Politkovsky, General Y. — 

From Seniavine, March 31 , 1854 14-15 

From Seniavine, March 31, 1854 17-18 

Reports on oV)servation of neutrality 19-21 

To minister of foreign affairs, January 2(), 1859 21-23 

To minister of finance, March 26, 1859 24-25 

To minister of finance, November 6, 1861 26 

To minister of finance, January 9, 1863 27 

Pratt, J. F.— 

From Mendenhall, INIarch 21 , 1894 276-277 

{See (dso Depositions.) 



INDEX TO THE APPENDIX. VII 

Correspondence— Continued. Page. 

Raikes, Arthur S. — 

From Lansdowne, August 18, 1902 156-161 

Reutern, M. — 

Report on renewal of lease, January 25, 1863 28-30 

To viee-chancellor, January 31, 1863 30 

Report on renewal of lease, February 22, 1863 31 

To Russian- Anieriian Company, February 23, 1863 32 

To Uortchakov, 3Iarch 16, 1867 32-33 

Richardson, William A. — 

To ci illector of customs, Sitka, Sei)tember 8, 1873 5-1 

To Fish, September 12, 1873 54 

To Fish, December 10, 1873 57-58 

Ritter, Homer P. — 

From Mendenhall, April 9, 1894 281 

{tSee also Depositions. ) 

Roseberry, Lord — 

To Phelps, April 15, 1886 92 

Russian minister of iinance. {See Reutern.) 

Russian minister of foreign affairs — 

To Reutern, February 26, 1859 23 

Report on renewal of lease, March 14, 1859 24 

Report on renewal of lease, October 19, 1861 25 

To Russian American Company, October 21, 1861 26 

Salisbury, Marquis of — 

To Phelps, July 26, 1886 91 

To Choate, May 17, 1899 125 

From Choate, May 18, 1899 125-127 

From Choate, May 19, 1899 127-128 

To Choate, July 1," 1899 128-129 

From Choate, August 9, 1899 129-132 

To Tower, October 14, 1899 132-138 

From Choate, January 22, 1900 138-155 

Sawyer, F. A. — 

To Fish, April 25, 1874 60 

Seniavine, Senator Leon — 

To Politkovsky, March 31, 1854 14-15 

To Politkovsky, March 31, 1854 17-18 

Seward, F. W.— 

From Plunkett, September 25, 1877 87 

Shepherd, John — 

To Russian American Company, May 16, 1854 18-19 

Sherman, John — 

To Berry, April 23, 1877 72 

Shidy, L. P.— 

Report on tides in Portland Canal 239 

Simpson, Sir (ieorge — 

To Wrangell -l-o 

To W rangell, January 25 ( Fel )ruary 6 ) , 1839 5 

From Wrangell, January 25 (February (i). 18.3i) 5 

{See also Extracts.) 

Tenterden, Earl of — 

To Cameron, January 29, 1 874 51 



VIII LNDEX TO THE APPENDIX. 

Corref?pondence— Continued. Page. 

Thomas, Captain Charles M. — 

Report on Portland Canal, etc ' 242-243 

Thorn, F. N.— 

To Dewdney, December 14, 1888 176 

From Dewdney, December 27, 1888 177 

Thornton, Sir Edward — 

To Davis, July ;]1, 1873 53 

From Davis, Sejitember 15, 1873 53-54 

From Dufferin, November 25, 1873 54-55 

To Fish, December 1, 1873 55-56 

From Fish, December 13, 1873 57 

From Fish, January 2, 1874 58 

From Fish, February 17, 1874 51 

To Carnarvon, February 18, 1S74 50 

From Fish, May 2, 1874 5.9-60 

To Derby, September 27, 1875 68 

Tittmann, Superintendent 0. H. — 

To Secretary of State, May 19, 1903 237 

To Hay, June 3, 1903 174 

Tower, R.— 

From Salisbury, October 14, 1899 132-138 

Trutch, Joseph W. — 

To Secretary of State of Canada, January 19, 1874 49 

Tupjjer, Sir Charles — 

To Bayard, February 11, 1888 156 

Villiers, F. H.— 

To Choate, May 13, 1899 124-125 

To White, January 22, 1903 163 

V^oevodski, Captain Stepan — 

From board of directors of Russian- American Company, April 16, 

1854 ". 16-18 

Walcott, Charles D. — 

To Secretary of State, June 4, 1903 286-287 

Watson, R. G. — 

From Dufferin, July 20, 1874 62 

From Fish, Auj^ust 18, 1874 64 

To Secretary of State, September 29, 1874 65 

West, Sir Lionel — 

To Frelinghuysen, November 5, 1883 88 

From Frelinghuysen, November 17, 1883 88 

To Bayard, April 3, 1886 92 

From Bayard, April 8, 1886 92 

^lemorandum of Alaskan boundary survey 93 

Wharton, AVilliam F. — 

From Fauncefote, October 2, 1891 119-120 

White, Henry — 

From Hay, December 18, 1902 162 

To Hay, January 23, 1903 162 

From Villiers, January 22, 1903 163 

Whitford, A. J.— 

Statement relative to Leach's survey 73 

Wood, ]\hijor H. Clay — 

To Howard, January 15, 1877 78-81 



INDEX TO THE APPENDIX. IX 

Corresponilence — Contiimeil. ragu. 
Wianfi:ell, Baron — 

From Simpson 4-b 

From 8imp!^on, January 25 ( February (i), 18H9 5 

To Simpson, January 25 (February 6), 1839 5 

Zai'ielejsky — 

To board of directors of Russian-American Company, January 29, 

1840 '. 13-14 

Custom-houses: 

Instructions to Canadian collectors at, on Stikine 65 

Location of Canadian, on Stikine River 74-78 

Dawson, Geo. M. {Str f^xtracts and Correspondence.) 

Depositions: 

Fortmann, Henry F 231-233 

Halpin, George H 265-267 

Healy, John J 23.3-236 

Hofstad, I. Myrhe 221 

Ik-ee-shaw, David 214 

Keen, James W 228-229 

Murray, Hugh 229, 230-231 

Nelson, John 265 

Poindexter, Theodore 282 

Pratt, John F 262-263 

Ripinski, Sol 21 7-220 

Ritter, Homer P 262 

Smith, John U 222-228 

Spuhn, Carl 220-221 

Welker, P. A 263-264 

Diplomatic Correspondence : 

of 1 886, relative to preliminary survey 91-93 

of 1890-92, relative to reciprocity 1 14-123 

subse(iuent to adjournment of Joint High Commission 124-163 

{See (tho Correspondence for names of writers.) 

Drafts: 

Of arbitration convention sent to British Government 156-161 

Draper, William N. : 

Testimony as to jurisdiction exercised by Hudson's Bay Company 45 

Dufferin, Lord. [See Extracts and Correspondence.) 

Ellice, Edward: 

Testimony as to jurisdiction exercised by Hudson's Bay Company 46 

Extracts: 

Begg, Alexander — "Review of Alaska boundary question" — Scottish 

Geogr. Magazine 210-211 

British Counter Case, Fur Seal Arbitration — meaning of "northwest 

coast" 191-193 

British statutes — Jurisdiction over coast of Labrador 2S4-285 

British Argument, Fur Seal Arbitration — meaning of "northwest coast". 1V)3-194 

British Case, Fur Seal Arl)itiation — meaning of "northwest coast" 190-191 

British Columbia I'ilot— "Area of British Columbia" 261-262 

British Colonist — Himter's survey 72 

' ' Cession of Russian possessions " 1 7S-1 80 

Cambie, H. J. — " Wark Inlet" — Canadian Scss. PajM-rs 255 



X INDEX TO THE API'ENDIX. 

Extracts — Continued. Page. 
Dawson, George IM. — 

"The Yukon Territory " 258-261 

' 'Area of Kamlooj)'s Map sheet " 257-258 

"The Coast Ranges," etc 256-257 

Debates, Senate of Canada, 1892 167-168 

Debates, Senate of Canada, 1898 199-200 

Debates, House of Conuuons, Canada, 1879, 1898, 1901 164-166, 

1()8-169, 170, 170-172, 172-17:^ 

Dufferin, Lord — "Tour through British Cohmibia in 1876" 254-255 

Edinburgh Review, 1900—" The Alaska Boundary " 208-210 

Findlay, Alex. — Localities in and around Portland Canal — Directory of 

North Paciiic, etc 255-256 

(iosnell, R. E. — "The Alaska Boundary," etc., Year Book of British 

Columbia 47-48; 200-204 

Journal of Royal Geogr. Society — "Portland Inlet " 52 

L' Univers — Article on Russian America 254 

Martin, R. M. — "Hudson's Bay Territories and Yancouvers Island "... 46-47 

Mills, David — Canadian view of Alaskan boundary dispute 204-207 

Maclear, Admiral J. P. — " Dixon Entrance" 261 

Mendenhall, Dr.— "The Alaskan Boundary"— Atlantic Monthly, 1896. 269-276 
Ogilvie, William — " Exploratory Survey of part of Lewes," etc. — Cana- 
dian Sess. Papers, 1890 214-217 

Pelly, J. H. — Rights exercised by Hudson's Bay Company — Pari. 

Papers, Commons, 1850 253 

Proclamation of Geo. Ill, in 1763, relative to l>oundary of Xewfound- 

land, etc ' 283-284 

Report of Select Committee on Hudson's Bay Company 36-46 

Simpson, Sir George — Trip through Russian America 35-36 

Sumner, Charles — Speech on cession of Russian America 197-199 

A'ancouver, George — "Yoyages" — Purpose in exi)loring northwest 

coast of America, etc 250-253 

Webster, Sir Richard — Interpretation of treaty of 1825 1 94-197 

Wheat on' s International Law—" Treaty of 1825 " 282-283 

Fortniann, Henry F. (>SVe Depositions. ) 

Gosnell, R. E. {See Extracts.) 

Greenhow, Robt. • {See Northwest coast.) 

Halpin, Geo. H. ((See Depositions. ) 

Healy, John J. {See Depositions.) 

Hofstad, I. Myrhe. (*S'cp Depositions. ) 

Hudson's Bay Com[)any: 

Trading operations in the lislere 1-2 

Report of Count Nesselrode on lease of llxiere 3 

Reciprocal neutrality with Russian American Company's territories 17-18 

Testimony before Select Committee as to jurisdiction exercised by 37-46 

Map showing territories claimed by, in 1850 253 

Indians: 

Letters and certificates given to, by Russians 212-214 

Letters and certificates given to, by \J. S. officials 288-290 

Medals given to, by Russians 214 

Keen, James W. {See Depositions.) 

Labrador: 

Jurisdiction over coast of 283-285 



INDEX TO THP: Al'PKNDIX. XI 

Laurier, Sir Wilfrod: Page. 

Remarks in Debater on Alaskan boundary 1 70-1 73 

Lease of llslPre: 

Report of Count Xesselrode on o 

Cori'espondence between Simpson and Wrangell relative to 4-5 

Translation of a portion of Article I of 6 

Statenient of provisions of 6-9 

renewal of, Correspondence relative to 1 2-14, 21-32 

Proposition for, by the United States , 33-35 

Letters. {See Correspondence. ) 

Lisib'e: 

Description of territory comprised in 7-8; 21 

Rental of, to be paid in land-otter skins 8-9 

Neutrality of, recii)rocally with British possessions 14-21 

Pn iposition of United States to lease or purchase 32-33 

Memorandum on lease or purchase by the United States 3.3-35 

Sir Richard Webster's definition of meaning of 195 

{See also Lease of lisi^re, and Neutrality.) 

Lynn Canal: 

American occui^ation of 212-236 

Indians at head of, Letters and certificates given to 212-214 

Depositions relating to American occupation of 21 7-236 

Garside's surveys on 231, 232, 235 

Ogilvie's survey of 1887 commencing at head of 214-217 

Maps: 

Wright's, transmitteil to State Department 76 

List of 243-250 

of Cassiar District, Depositions relative to 229-231, 265-267 

of territories claime<l by Hudson's Bay Com])any 253 

Martin, Peter, case of 87 

Martin, R. M. {See Extracts.) 

Medals: 

given by Russians to Indians 214 

Memorials: 

British Cohunbia Legislative Assembly, on delimitation of boundary 49 

Merriam, C. Hart. (.SVe Beaver. ) 

Mills, David: 

Remarks in Debates on A laskan l)oundary 165-166 

{See also Extracts.) 

Mines: 

Discovery of, in Ca.ssiar District, a reason for survey of boundary 50 

Report as to, operated in llsihr at present time 2S6-287 

Mountains: 

Dawson's description of, in Alaska 256-258 

Depositions of U. S. Coast Survey experts relative to 262-265 

Murray, Hugh. (^SVc Depositions. ) 

Nelson, John. (-S'ec Depositions. ) 

Neutrality. {See LIsitire.) 

Newfoundland: 

Jurisiliction over coast of Laljrador granted to 283-284 

Newspapers. {See Extracts.) 

Northwest coast: 

Greenhow's definition of meaning of 190-191 

Extracts from Fur Seal Arbitration Papers ddining l!»l-l!t7 



XII INDEX TO THE APPENDIX. 

Otter: Page. 

Rental of Imerc to be paid in pkin? of 8-9, 34-35 

Pearse Canal. {See Portland and Pearse canals.) 

Periodicals. (»SVt' Extracts. ) 

Petitions: 

of American citizens relative to Canadian restrictions on tratlic via 
Stikine River 64-65; 81-82 

Poindexter, Theo. {See Depositions. ) 

Portland Canal. (*SW' Portland and Pearse canals.) 

Portland and Pearse Canals: 

Description of points in and around — Findlay 255-256 

Article on — Journal of Royal Geogr. Society 52 

Navigability of 237-243 

Publications. {See Extracts. ) 

Reciprocity Conference of 1892: 

Correspondence relating to 114-123 

Ripinski, Sol. (»SVc Dei:)Ositions. ) 

Russian America: 

Proposition of United States to pun-hase 32-33 

^Memorandum of Russian foreign (ittlce on foregoing 33-35 

Russian American Company: 

Governor of, to board of directors, May 6, 1832 1-2 

Statement of board of directors of, relative to lease of Jisiere, Ajiril 17, 

1839 6-9 

Conflicts of, with Hudson's Bay Company in trade 1-2; 9-12 

Board of directors of, to minister of finance, December 17, 1848 12-13 

Zacielejsky to board of directors, Jamiary 29, 1840 13-14 

Board of directors of, to Voevodski, April 16, 1854 16-18 

Reports of board of directors of, on observance of neutrality 19-21 

To minister of foreign affairs, January 26, 1859 21-23 

Board of directors of, to minister of finance, March 26, 1854 24-25 

Minister of foreign affairs to, October 21, 1861 26 

To minister of finance, November 6, 1 861 26 

To minister of finance, January 9, 1863 27 

Russian documents. {See Correspondence. ) 

Schwatka, Lieut. Fred.: 

Report of reconnoissance in Alaska 89 

Scott, Richard W.: 

Remarks in Debates on Alaskan boundary 167-168; 199-200 

Sifton, Clifford: 

Remarks in Debates on A laskan boundary 169 

Simpson, Sir Geo. {See Correspondence and Extracts. ) 

Smith, J. U. (tSff Depositions. ) 

Spuhn, Carl. (/S'e*' Depositions. ) 

Statutes: 

British, concerning jurisdiction over coast of Labrador 284-285 

Stikine River: 

British restrictions on transit of merchandise via 59-67; 82-84 

Canadian customs-house on. Location of 74-78 

Establishment of settlement by Hudson's Bay Company on 2 

H unter's survey of 72-75 

Leach's survey of 72-73 

Navigation of, secured to British by Treaty of "Washington 57-59 

Regulation of conunercial traffic on, by the United States 53-58 



INDEX TO THE APPENDIX. XIII 

Stikine River— Continued. Page. 

Survey of town s^ite on, by Canadians (5(5-71 

U. S. Trea.sury otticials ins^trurted to permit free navigation of, in accord- 
ance with Treaty of A\'a.shin>;ton 58 

Survey : 

of boundary, Necessity foi- 68-69 

Agreement of Canada to, by a commission 91-92 

Correspondence of 1888 relative to 174-177 

Ogilvie's, on Lynn Canal 214-217 

Garside' s, on Lynn Canal 231-235 

Mendenhall's instructions for 27(j-281 

Treasury Department: 

Instructions of, relative to free navigation of the Stikine Kiver 54, 58 

Prohibition by, in 1868 of navigation of the Stikine River by foreign 

vessels 56 

Views of, as to navigation of Stikine River 57-58 

Treaties: 

Treaty of Washington — 

Free navigation of the Stikine River granted 1 jy 55-58 

Treaty of 1903— 

Correspondence leading to 124-161 

Tapper, Sir Charles H. : 

Remarks in Debates on Alaskan boundary 168-170 

Vancouver, Geo. {See Extracts.) 

Webster, Sir Richard. {See Extracts. ) 

Welker, P. A. (>SVe Depositions.) 

() 



EB 13 1904 



